Bombay High Court
LOKESH RAKESHKUMAR SOODversusTHE UNION OF INDIA THR THE SEC. MINISTRY OF ELE. AND INFO TECH AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Withdrawal of a writ petition does not impede the petitioner’s right to avail a statutory remedy, and the order must be corrected to preserve that right.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition and later moved a praecipe to withdraw it, but failed to state that he intended to keep open his right to pursue a statutory remedy under the Information Technology Act, 2000. The respondents opposed any addition of such liberty in the order. The Court noted that the petitioner had indicated an alternate remedy before the adjudicating officer, albeit without expressly reserving the right to use it. The Court held that the existence of a statutory remedy prevents the withdrawal of the petition from barring the petitioner’s future claim. Accordingly, the Court corrected the earlier order to state that the petition is withdrawn but the petitioner’s right to avail the statutory remedy remains open. The corrected order was directed to be uploaded and the praecipe was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the withdrawal of a writ petition bars the petitioner from later availing a statutory remedy under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
- Whether the order of withdrawal should be corrected to reflect the petitioner’s reservation of the statutory remedy.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ petition
- withdrawal
- statutory remedy
- Information Technology Act
- order correction
- reservation of rights
Judgment
2-WP.6267.2026.odt
JVS.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6267 OF 2026
JAYANT
VISHWANATH
SALUNKE
Lokesh Rakeshkumar Sood } Petitioner
Digitally signed by
JAYANT VISHWANATH
Versus
SALUNKE
Date: 2026.08.25
11:03:14 +0530 The Union of India & Ors. } Respondents
Mr. Rahul Singh with Ms. Pranali Raut i/b. Dr. Prashant Mali,
for the Petitioner.
Mr. D. P. Singh with Mr. Aditya Thakkar, for Respondent No. 1.
Ms. Poonam Ashar with Ms. Vasundhara Dhar i/b. AQUI Law,
for Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4.
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ACJ. &
M. M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2026
P.C.:
1. The praecipe dated 21st August, 2026 has been filed by the
Petitioner for speaking to the minutes of the order dated 19 th August, 2026.
The learned Advocate for the Petitioner is apologetic that in the praecipe for
withdrawal of the Petition, marked ‘X’, it was not mentioned that the
Petitioner desires to reserve his right to avail of a statutory remedy.
2. The learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, opposes
addition of any liberty, in the said order, by way of a speaking to the minutes
motion.
1
2-WP.6267.2026.odt
3. We have perused the praecipe ‘X’, in which the Petitioner has
mentioned that there is an alternate remedy before the adjudicating officer
under the Information Technology Act, 2000. Inadvertently, it is not
mentioned that the Petitioner desires to avail of the remedy.
4. If the Petitioner has a statutory remedy available, his withdrawal
of the Writ Petition cannot become an impediment.
5. In view of the above, Paragraph No. 2 of the order dated 19 th
August, 2026 stands corrected as under: -
“In view of the above, this Petition is disposed off as
withdrawn, on instructions. If the Petitioner avails of a
statutory remedy, all contentions of the all the parties are
kept open.”
6. Let the corrected order dated 19th August, 2026 be uploaded
accordingly.
7. The praecipe stands disposed off.
[M. M. SATHAYE, J.] [ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE]
2
Checking your session…