The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, dismissed the criminal writ petition held that disputed questions of fact and the availability of an alternate efficacious remedy excluded the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.
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.
crwp873.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.873/2015
Sanubai Prabhu Rathod and anr. ..vs.. Superintendent of Police, Chandrapur and ors.
Mr. N. B. Rathod, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. N. B. Jawade, A.P.P. for respondent-State
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 9, 2016
Heard.
The petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy available under the law. In any case, such disputed questions of fact cannot be entertained in the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed, relegating the petitioner to the alternate remedy available in law.
JUDGE JUDGE
kahale
crwp873.15.odt
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order.
Uploaded by: Y. A. Kahale.
Uploaded On:10.08.2016
1 issue framed by the court
Whether disputed questions of fact can be entertained in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternate efficacious remedy exists.
Sanubai Prabhu Rathod and anr.
Superintendent of Police, Chandrapur and ors.
B. R. Gavai
V. M. Deshpande
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
