The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad disposed of a writ petition without considering the merits, holding that an alternate legal remedy is available to the petitioner.
Writ petition disposed of without consideration due to availability of alternate remedy.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
922 WRIT PETITION NO. 2373 OF 2016
ASHOK TATYARAO MHASKE
VERSUS
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION LATUR AND
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Biradar R.d.
Mr. SB Pulkundwar, AGP for State.
CORAM : R. M. BORDE & P.R. BORA, JJ.
Dated: March 15, 2016
PER COURT :-
1)In view of availability of alternate remedy
available in law for redressal of the grievances of the
petitioner, the instant petition need not be considered.
Keeping option of the petitioner to avail of the alternate
remedy available in law open, the writ petition is disposed
of.
2)It would be open for the petitioner to raise the
contentions based upon pendency of the instant petition
before this Court, while making request for extension of
time/condonation of delay before the appropriate forum.
( P.R. BORA, J. ) ( R. M. BORDE, J. )
BDV
ASHOK TATYARAO MHASKE
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION LATUR
R. M. BORDE
P. R. BORA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court