Bombay High Court

PRAVIN PRABHAKAR NAGE.versusUNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,

Decided: 1 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The petition must be withdrawn and the petitioner directed to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal as mandated by L. Chandra Kumar.

Summary

The petitioner, Pravin Prabhakar Nage, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging actions of the Union of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proper forum for the grievance was the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, the Court held that the petition should be pursued before the CAT. Accordingly, the Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition and approach the CAT, keeping all contentions open for future determination. The Court also observed that the petitioner, having acted in good faith, is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The interim application was dismissed as it could not survive the withdrawal of the main petition.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petition should be entertained by the High Court or the petitioner must approach the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for a bona‑fide petition.
Whether the pending interim application survives after the withdrawal of the main petition.

Legislation cited

Limitation Act — s. 14

Subjects

Central Administrative Tribunal
jurisdiction
limitation
withdrawal
writ petition
administrative law

Judgment

Digitally
signed by
PRASHANT
PRASHANT VILAS
VILAS RANE
5 -IA-3830-2026.DOC
RANE Date:
2026.09.05
13:37:11
+0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3830 OF 2026
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3830 OF 2024

Pravin Prabhakar Nage. ...Applicant/Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Shrishailya Deshmukh i/b. Balwant Salunkhe, for Applicant.
Mr. Aayush Kedia (through VC) for the Respondents.
_________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
Dr.NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

DATE: 01 September 2026.
P.C.

1. Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the applicant fairly submits that the

petitioner/applicant ought to have approached the Central Administrative Tribunal.

2. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of

India1, the appropriate course for the petitioner would be to approach the Central

Administrative Tribunal.

3. We accordingly permit the petitioner to withdraw this petition with liberty to

approach the Central Administrative Tribunal.

4. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.

5. Disposed of as withdrawn. No costs.

6. Needless to observe that as the petitioner has pursued this petition bonafide, the

petitioner would be entitled to avail the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

7. Pending Interim Application would not survive. It is disposed of.

(Dr.NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

1 AIR 1997 SC 1125
Page 1 of 1
1 September 2026
P.V.Rane

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…