Bombay High Court
PRAKASH DAYANAND GURAVversusTHE ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed, directing the petitioner to pursue the alternate remedy of filing a revision under Rule 15(1)(c) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967.
Summary
Petitioner Prakash Dayanand Gurav challenged his termination of service by filing a writ petition, arguing that the termination violated natural justice and that an alternate remedy of filing a revision under Rule 15(1)(c) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967 should not bar the petition. The respondents contended that the petitioner must first pursue the revision remedy. The Court held that the existence of a statutory revision remedy precludes the writ petition and therefore dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to file the revision. The Court also excluded the period from the filing date (21/01/2022) for limitation computation and noted the six‑year lapse since termination, urging the revisional authority to decide promptly. The pending civil application was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner must first avail the statutory revision remedy under Rule 15(1)(c) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967 before approaching the High Court by way of a writ petition.
- Whether the alleged breach of natural justice bars the petitioner from invoking the alternate revision 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
- revision
- natural justice
- service termination
- administrative law
- limitation
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:38486-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…