The court declined to entertain a writ petition filed by Dinkar Onkar Dhinwar against the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. It held that an efficacious alternate remedy was available in law, leaving the petitioner to pursue that avenue.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
907 WRIT PETITION NO.2265 OF 2017
DINKAR ONKAR DHINWAR
VERSUS
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JALGAON
...
Mr. B.K. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. M.K. Goyanka, Advocate for the sole respondent
CORAM :SUNIL P. DESHMUKH &
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ.
DATE:03rd DECEMBER, 2019
PER COURT:
1Heard learned counsel for the parties. There appears to be
substance in the submissions on behalf of respondent that there is efficacious
alternate remedy available.
2In the circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the writ
petition leaving it open to petitioner to have resort to alternate remedy as
would be available in law.
3Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi ) ( Sunil P. Deshmukh ) JUDGE JUDGE
agd
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition warrants admission when an efficacious alternate remedy is available.
DINKAR ONKAR DHINWAR
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JALGAON
Sunil P. Deshmukh
Vibha Kankanwadi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court