Bombay High Court
PRAKASH DAYANAND GURAVversusTHE ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed because the petitioner must first pursue the revision remedy under Rule 15(1)(c) of the applicable Rules.
Summary
Petitioner Prakash Dayanand Gurav challenged his termination order, alleging breach of natural justice, by filing a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. Respondents argued that the petitioner had an alternate remedy of filing a revision under Rule 15(1)(c) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967. The Court examined whether the existence of that revision remedy barred the writ petition and held that it did, directing the petitioner to pursue the revision. The Court also noted that the period from filing the petition would be excluded for limitation purposes and that the revisional authority should decide the matter promptly. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed, and the petitioner was relegated to the alternate remedy.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner has an alternate remedy of revision under Rule 15(1)(c) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967 that bars the writ petition.
- Whether the breach of natural justice alleged by the petitioner can be entertained despite the availability of the alternate remedy.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967 — s. Rule 13(1)(e), Rule 15(1)(c)
Subjects
- writ petition
- natural justice
- revision remedy
- administrative law
- service termination
- limitation
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:38485-DB
IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
969 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3002 OF 2026
IN WP/1315/2022
Prakash Dayanand Gurav
VERSUS
The Additional Divisional Commissioner And Others
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Kolpe Mahendra B.
AGP for Respondents-State: Mr. S. K. Shirse
Advocate for Respondents No.2 to 4 : Mr. S. B. Munde
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1315 OF 2022
...
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
Dated : August 25, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. The learned Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4 raises a
preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternate remedy of
filing a revision under Rule 15(1)(c) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad
District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967. The learned
Advocate for the petitioner states that the order of termination is
based on breach of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the
alternate remedy would not bar the present petition.
2. It is not in dispute that the order of termination was initially
challenged in an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner under Rule
13(1)(e) of the said Rules. The revision is preferred against the said
order. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to accept the
argument of the learned Advocate for the petitioner with respect to
Page 1 of 2
969 CA 3002-2026
alternate remedy. Writ Petition is disposed of, relegating the
petitioner to the alternate remedy of filing a revision under Rule
15(1)(c) of the said Rules.
3. The period from the date of filing of the petition, i.e.
21/01/2022, till date shall be excluded for the purpose of
computation of limitation.
4. Since the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order
dated 20/08/2020 and a period of over six years has lapsed since
then, the revisional authority is requested to decide the revision as
early as possible and preferably before 31/03/2027. Pending Civil
Application stands disposed of.
( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. )
vj gawade/-.
Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…