The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad dismissed the writ petition on preliminary grounds, finding an alternative remedy exists before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Writ petition disposed with liberty to avail alternate remedy.
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)
1016-wp-4647-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
1016 WRIT PETITION NO.4647 OF 2021
KARIM MAHEBOOB SHAH
..PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS..RESPONDENTS
Mr. Nitinkumar C. Swami, Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Mr. A. G. Talhar, ASG for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
… CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & R. N. LADDHA, JJ. DATED : 12th AUGUST, 2021.
PER COURT:-
1.We have heard learned counsel for
petitioner.
2.Mr. Talhar, learned ASG for respondents
raises a preliminary objection that petitioner has
remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
3.In light of that, Writ Petition is
disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail
the alternate remedy as may be permissible under
law.
4.All contentions are kept open. No costs.
Devendra/August-2021
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Karim Maheboob Shah
The Union of India
S. V. Gangapurwala
R. N. Laddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court