The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad dismissed the writ petition, holding the dispute civil in nature requiring fact-finding and noting an alternate remedy was available.
The writ petition is not entertained and stands disposed of.
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.
wp252616.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2526 OF 2016
Shivaji s/o Narayan Veer
Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others
Respondents
Mr.S.M.Pandit, advocate for the petitioner Mr.A.S.Shinde, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 4.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 07th December, 2016
PER COURT:
Perused the petition as well as affidavit-in-reply presented by Respondent No.4.
The dispute appears to be of a civil nature and in order to decide the controversy, fact finding exercise needs to be undertaken. Apart from this, there is an efficacious alternate remedy available to the petitioner for redressal of his grievance.
For the reasons recorded above, instant petition, presented on behalf of the petitioner, need not be entertained in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Keeping open an option to the petitioner to avail of alternate remedy available in law, petition stands disposed of.
( SANGITRAO S. PATIL) JUDGE
(R.M.BORDE) JUDGE
adb/wp252616
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition requiring fact-finding should be entertained under Article 226.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaReferred¶15
Shivaji s/o Narayan Veer
The State of Maharashtra
R.M. Borde
Sangitrao S. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
