Bombay High Court
SMT SUSHILA BHIMRAO GADADEversusTHE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AHMEDNAGAR AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as the petitioner has an alternate and equally efficacious remedy of filing a revision before the Divisional Commissioner.
Summary
Petitioner Sushila Bhimrao Gadade challenged an order dated 01‑06‑2016 of the Additional Collector, Ahmednagar, which dismissed her appeal in RTS Appeal No. 324 of 2016. She filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking relief against that order. The Court observed that the petitioner has an alternate and equally efficacious remedy of filing a revision before the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division. Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition and disposed of it, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the Divisional Commissioner within eight weeks. The Court also directed that any delay in prosecuting the petition be taken into account by the Commissioner when considering condonation of delay, and kept all points open for further consideration.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition is maintainable when an alternate and equally efficacious remedy of revision before the Divisional Commissioner is available.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition in view of the existence of the alternative remedy.
Subjects
- writ petition
- revision
- administrative law
- jurisdiction
- alternative remedy
- delay condonation
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:8902
1 57 WP 13088-2017.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
57 WRIT PETITION NO. 13088 OF 2017
SMT SUSHILA BHIMRAO GADADE
VERSUS
THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AHMEDNAGAR AND OTHERS
…
Mr. Sanjay N. Gaikwad h/f. Mr. N.V. Gaware – Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. R.B. Dhaware – AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, State
Mr. B.T. Bodkhe – Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 to 7, 9 and 10
…
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 27.02.2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2. The petitioner assails the order dated 01.06.2016 passed by
respondent No.1 – the Additional Collector, Ahmednagar, in RTS Appeal
No. 324 of 2016, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner came to be
dismissed.
3. Against the said order, the petitioner has an alternate and equally
efficacious remedy of filing revision before the Divisional Commissioner,
Nashik Division, Nashik.
4. In view thereof, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition.
5. The Writ Petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to
challenge the impugned order before the Divisional Commissioner,
2 57 WP 13088-2017.odt
Nashik Division, Nashik.
6. The petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal before the Divisional
Commissioner within a period of eight (8) weeks from today.
7. The delay caused in prosecuting the present petition shall be taken
into consideration by the Divisional Commissioner while considering an
application for condonation of delay.
8. All points are kept open.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
Pooja Kale/
Checking your session…