Bombay High Court

DHANRAJ TARACHAND PAWAR AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: N B SURYAWANSHI ABASAHEB D SHINDE

Holding

The petitioners must pursue the remedy under Section 34 of the MIDC Act and the writ petition is disposed.

Summary

The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging a final award dated 13 September 2021 issued by respondent No.3. They argued that they have an alternate efficacious remedy under Section 34 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the petitioners should pursue that statutory remedy instead of seeking relief through the writ. The Court, after considering the submissions, disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioners liberty to avail the alternate remedy under the MIDC Act. The Court also noted that the time spent in prosecuting the petition would be taken into account for any future application for condonation of delay.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioners are entitled to relief by way of a writ against the final award dated 13‑09‑2021
Whether the petitioners must first avail the alternate remedy provided under Section 34 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 — s. 34

Subjects

writ petition
MIDC Act
Section 34
alternate remedy
condonation of delay
High Court of Bombay

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:25800-DB
                                                    1                        954.doc



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                        954 WRIT PETITION NO. 6538 OF 2026
                     DHANRAJ TARACHAND PAWAR AND OTHERS
                                     VERSUS
           THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS
                                              ...
                    Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. More Kumar Gaurav M.
                     AGP/APP for Respondent/State : Ms. Neha B. Kamble
                        Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Mr. S.S.Nade
                                                …
                                            CORAM       : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                                                          ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                                              DATE      : 02.07.2026

               PER COURT :
               .        By this Writ Petition, the petitioners are challenging the final
               award dated 13.09.2021 declared by respondent No.3 on the grounds
               stated in the petition.

               2.      Learned AGP submits that the petitioners have an alternate
               efficacious remedy under Section 34 of the ‘Maharashtra Industrial
               Development Act,1961 (‘MIDC Act’).

               3.      In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of with
               liberty to the petitioners to avail the alternate remedy.

               4.      The time spent in prosecuting this petition shall be taken into
               consideration while considering the application for condonation of
               delay, if any.




               ( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. )                ( NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J. )
   vsj..

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…