The High Court held that the writ petition need not be entertained as an alternate remedy was available for the petitioner's grievance and disposed of the matter accordingly.
The Writ Petition was disposed of as an alternate remedy was available for the grievance raised.
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
15.WP.353-18.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Writ Petition NO. 353 OF 2018
Abhishek S/o. Sohanlal Tiwari
...Petitioner
Versus
The Union Of India And Ors.
...Respondents
Mr. Abhijit Patil i/b. Ajay Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. C.P. Yadav, AGP for Respondent No.5.
CORAM : R.M. BORDE & R. G. KETKAR, JJ.
DATE : 15th JANUARY, 2018
P.C.
In view of availability of alternate remedy for redressal of the
grievance raised by the petitioner in the instant petition, Writ Petition
need not be entertained. Keeping the option of the petitioner open to
avail of such alternate remedy, Writ Petition is disposed of.
(R. G. KETKAR, J.) (R.M. BORDE, J.)
Deshmane (PS)
1 / 1
Abhishek Tiwari
Union Of India
R.M. BORDE
R.G. KETKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
