Bombay High Court
SACHIN AJAYABSING ADBALWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petition is disposed because the petitioner has an alternate and equally efficacious remedy of filing a revision under Rule 15(4).
Summary
The petitioner, Sachin Ajayabsing Adbalwar, challenged an order dated 12 July 2018 issued by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, in Appeal No.150 of 2014, which was made under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. The petitioner sought relief through a writ petition, contending that the order was erroneous. The Court observed that the petitioner had an alternate and equally efficacious remedy of filing a revision under Rule 15(4) of the same Rules. Since the revision route was available, the Court found no merit in entertaining the writ petition. Consequently, the petition was disposed, and the petitioner was directed to file a revision within four weeks, with the State Government required to decide the revision within six weeks of filing.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternate and equally efficacious remedy of revision under Rule 15(4) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 is available
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 — s. Rule 14, Rule 15(4)
Subjects
- Writ Petition
- Revision
- Administrative Law
- Discipline Rules
- Maharashtra Zilla Parishad
- Rule 14
- Rule 15(4)
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:18334
1 of 2 982-WP.4274.2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
982 WRIT PETITION NO. 4274 OF 2019
SACHIN AJAYABSING ADBALWAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Mr. R. P. Bhumkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Suhas B. Ghute, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
Mr. Viraj S. Yelmame h/f. Mr. Umesh B. Gite, Advocate for Respondent
No.5.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 18th APRIL, 2026
P.C.:-
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.
2. By the present petition, the Petitioner assails the order dated
12.07.2018 passed by Respondent No.2 – learned Additional Divisional
Commissioner, Aurangabad, in Appeal No.150 of 2014. The present
proceedings arise out of the provisions of the Maharashtra Zilla
Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. The
Commissioner has decided the proceedings under Rule 14. Against the
said order, the Petitioner has an alternate and equally efficacious
remedy of filing a revision under Rule 15(4) of the said Rules.
3. In view thereof, the present petition is disposed of.
4. The Petitioner is at liberty to file a revision within a period of
2 of 2 982-WP.4274.2019.odt
four weeks from today. If such revision is filed within the aforesaid
period, the delay caused while prosecuting the present petition shall be
taken into consideration by the State Government while deciding an
application for condonation of delay. In the event, such revision is filed
within four weeks from today, the State Government is directed to
decide the revision within a period of six weeks thereafter.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
Checking your session…