This court disposed of the writ petition by declining to entertain it, noting that alternate remedies exist for the grievance raised by the petitioner.
Writ petition disposed of as no reasons to entertain it due to availability of alternate remedies in law.
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.
wp3479.16.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3479 OF 2016
Grampanchayat Pethshivani
Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others
Respondents
Mr. S.B. Sontakke, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar , A.G.P. for Respondents 1 to 4.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
P. R. BORA, JJ. DATE : 20th MARCH, 2017
PER COURT:
In view of availability of alternate remedies for redressal of the grievance raised by petitioner in the instant petition, writ petition need not be entertained. It would be open for the petitioner to avail of the alternate remedies available in law. Keeping the option to avail of alternate remedies available in law, open for the petitioner, writ petition stands disposed of.
( P. R. BORA ) ( R.M.BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE
dyb
Grampanchayat Pethshivani
The State of Maharashtra
R.M. Borde
P.R. Bora
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
