Bombay High Court
AMAR ATMARAM SAGALEversusTHE UNION OF INDIA THROU. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GEN. MAHARASHTRA CIRCLE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
A writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy is available and the petitioner has not exhausted that remedy.
Summary
The petitioner, Amar Atmaram Sagale, filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that had denied his relief. The petition was dismissed because the petitioner had already pursued the remedy before the CAT and the writ petition was deemed premature and without merit. The court noted that the petitioner’s counsel failed to appear despite a prior order. It held that an alternative statutory remedy was available and that the writ petition was therefore not maintainable. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal
- Whether the petitioner’s failure to appear before the court affects the maintainability of the writ petition
Subjects
- Article 226
- Writ Petition
- Central Administrative Tribunal
- Alternative statutory remedy
- Dismissal
Judgment
(3)-WP-13052-24.doc
PANCHAL
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally
signed by
BALAJI
BALAJI
GOVINDRAO
GOVINDRAO PANCHAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 13052 OF 2024
PANCHAL Date:
2026.09.18
10:15:45
+0530
Amar Atmaram Sagale ...Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
...
None for the Petitioner.
Mr. Aniruddha A. Garge, for the Respondents.
...
CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
DATE : 17th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C.:
1. In view of the order dated 10 th September, 2026, we
find that the Petitioner’s Counsel has not turned up in the
instant proceeding.
2. Learned Counsel for the contesting Respondents on
the other side submits that even under the facts and
circumstances the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is not maintainable, as initially the
Petitioner has pressed the OA before the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal. The relief was negated, which was
again subject matter of challenge before this Court in writ
jurisdiction. Later on, while entertaining the Writ Petition only
leave that was accorded was to press the Application, which
1
(3)-WP-13052-24.doc
was again turned down by the Respondent. The said decision
can be challenged before the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal.
3. In light of the above, Writ Petition is devoid of merits
and liable to be dismissed.
4. In view of an alternate statutory efficacious remedy
the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that in
spite of our endeavour extended to the Petitioner’s counsel vide
order dated 10th September, 2026, he has not turned up in the
instant proceeding.
5. For the above reasons, including availability of
alternate efficacious remedy as noted above, we are not
inclined to entertain the present Petition.
6. The Writ Petition is Dismissed.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.