The High Court disposed of the writ petition, holding that an alternate remedy lies approaching the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. Consequently, the petition was not entertained, keeping the petitioner’s option open for the 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.
1 WP-8267.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8267 OF 2016
Sandip Ashokrao Shejul
...PETITIONER
versus
The State of Maharashtra and ors.
...RESPONDENTS
Mr. Hiraji Gaikwad , Advocate for petitioner Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for respondents
CORAM : R.M. BORDE AND K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
DATED : 30th AUGUST, 2016.
Order :-
In view of availability of alternate remedy to approach Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, present writ petition need not be entertained. Keeping the option open to avail of alternate remedies for the petitioner, writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/Sd/-
[K. K. SONAWANE, J.] [R.M. BORDE, J.]
MTK
Sandip Ashokrao Shejul
The State of Maharashtra
R.M. BORDE
K.K. SONAWANE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
