Bombay High Court

PRAKASH EKNATH RANEversusRAMCHANDRA JHAVARU KOLI AND OTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed because an alternate and equally efficacious remedy – a revision before the State Government – is available, as affirmed by Supreme Court precedent.

Summary

The petitioners, Prakash Eknath Rane, challenged an order dated 29‑11‑2017 issued by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik. They filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court seeking relief against that order. The Court observed that the petitioners have an alternate and equally efficacious remedy – a revision petition before the State Government – which has been recognised by the Supreme Court in Gurudassing Nawoosing Panjwani v. State of Maharashtra. Because the alternative remedy is available, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition. The petition was therefore dismissed, with the Court directing the petitioners to file a revision within six weeks and warning that any delay in the writ petition would affect any condonation of delay application. The State Government was directed to decide the revision within eight weeks if filed within the stipulated period.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition when an alternate and equally efficacious remedy is available.
Whether the petitioners should pursue a revision before the State Government instead of the writ petition.

Subjects

writ petition
revision
alternate remedy
jurisdiction
delay
High Court
Administrative law

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:12740
98-CAst-8910-2020.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

98 WRIT PETITION NO. 3003 OF 2018

Prakash Eknath Rane
VERSUS
Ramchandra Jhavaru Koli And Other
…..
Mr. A. R. Syed, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for the Respondents – State
Mr. V. B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.1
…..
WITH
98 CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO. 8910 OF 2026

Prakash Eknath Rane
VERSUS
Ramchandra Jhavaru Koli And Other
…..
Mr. A. R. Syed, Advocate for the Applicant
Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for the Respondents – State
…..
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 24.03.2026

PER COURT :

[I] ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION :

1. By this application, the applicants seek permission to bring on
record the legal heirs of the petitioner.

2. Considering the averments made in the application, the
application is allowed in terms of Prayer Clauses - ‘B’ and ‘C’.
Amendment be carried out forthwith.

1
98-CAst-8910-2020.odt

[II] ORDER IN WRIT PETITION :

1. Heard Mr. A. R. Syed, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Mr. B. A. Shinde, learned AGP for Respondents – State and Mr. V. B.
Patil, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1.

2. The Petitioner is challenging the order dated 29.11.2017
passed by Respondent No.2 - Additional Divisional Commissioner,
Nashik, Division Nashik in RTS/REV/447/2017.

3. The Petitioners are having an alternate and equally
efficacious remedy against the order passed by the Additional
Divisional 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 decided on
06.11.2015.

4. In view of availability of alternate remedy, I am not
inclined to entertain the present petition and the same is disposed of
accordingly.

5. The Petitioners may file revision before the State
Government within a period of six weeks. Delay caused while
prosecuting the present writ petition shall be taken into consideration
while deciding an application for condonation of delay.

2
98-CAst-8910-2020.odt

6. The State Government shall decide the revision within a
period of eight weeks if the same is filed by the petitioners within the
aforesaid period.

[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]

Sameer/March-2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…