Bombay High Court
SIDDHESHWAR RANBA URGUNDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable where an alternate and equally efficacious remedy is available, and thus it is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner challenged a 15 November 2019 order of the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, via a writ petition. The court noted that the petitioner had an alternate and equally efficacious remedy – a revision before the State Government – which had already been considered by the Supreme Court in Gurudassing Nawoosing Panjwani v. State of Maharashtra (2015 AIR SCW 6277). Relying on that precedent, the High Court declined to interfere with the order. The petition was therefore disposed, with the court directing the petitioner to file a revision within six weeks and to seek condonation of any delay. The decision underscores the principle that courts will not entertain writ petitions when a satisfactory alternative remedy is available.
Issues considered
- Is a writ petition maintainable when an alternate and equally efficacious remedy exists?
- Should the court entertain the petition despite alleged delay in filing?
Subjects
- writ petition
- alternate remedy
- revision
- condonation of delay
- administrative law
- jurisdiction
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:18294
1 of 2 106-WP.2082.2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
106 WRIT PETITION NO. 2082 OF 2020
SIDDHESHWAR RANBA URGUNDE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Mr. Ravibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for Respondents-State.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 23rd APRIL, 2026
P.C.:-
1. Heard Mr. Ravibhushan P. Adgaonkar, learned counsel for the
Petitioner and Mr. D. R. Korde, learned AGP for Respondents-State.
2. The Petitioner is challenging the order dated 15.11.2019
passed by Respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad in
File No.2018/GA/POL-1/Arms/CR-18.
3. The Petitioner is having an alternate and equally efficacious
remedy against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner,
Nashik, to file a revision before the State Government and this issue is
already considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter
Gurudassing Nawoosing Panjwani Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ,
reported in 2015 AIR SCW 6277 SUPREME COURT decided on
06.11.2015.
2 of 2 106-WP.2082.2020
4. In view thereof, I am not inclined to interfere in the present
writ petition on the ground of having alternate remedies. Hence, writ
petition is disposed of.
5. The Petitioner may file revision before the State Government
within a period of six weeks. Delay in prosecuting the present writ
petition be taken into consideration while, considering the application
for condonation of delay.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
Checking your session…