This High Court disposed of a writ petition by invoking no-interference jurisdiction under Article 226, advising the petitioner to avail alternative remedies available in law.
None. Petition disposed of on the ground that alternative remedy is available 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.
WP 3844/18
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3844/2018
Bhimrao Bhanudas Kachkure.
...Petitioner..
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others.
...Respondents...
Shri S.S. Katariya, Advocate for petitioner.
Smt.P.V. Diggikar, AGP for respondent no.1.
CORAM: R.M. BORDE & K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
DATE: 17.04.2018
ORDER :
It would be open to the petitioner to avail the
alternative remedy available in law. In exercise of
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, no interference is called for.
Keeping the option open to avail the alternative remedy
by the petitioner, the petition is disposed of. No
costs.
ndk/ c1741830.doc
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhimrao Bhanudas Kachkure
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