Bombay High Court
MADHAV GOPALA MATEversusGANGUBAI YADAVRAO MATE AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petition is dismissed as an alternate remedy is available.
Summary
The petitioners, Madhav Gopala Mate, challenged an order dated 02.05.2018 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik. They sought relief through a writ petition, despite having an alternate and equally efficacious remedy of filing a revision before the State Government, a point previously considered by the Supreme Court in Gurudassing Nawoosing Panjwani v. State of Maharashtra. The High Court, noting the availability of this alternative remedy, declined to entertain the writ petition and disposed of the case. The court directed the petitioners to file a revision within six weeks and warned that any delay in the present petition would affect any future condonation of delay applications. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition can be entertained when an alternate and equally efficacious remedy is available
- Whether the principle of alternative remedy bars the High Court from entertaining the petition
Subjects
- writ petition
- revision
- alternative remedy
- jurisdiction
- condonation of delay
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:5408
Dilwale 1 26-WP-7805-18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
26 WRIT PETITION NO. 7805 OF 2018
Madhav Gopala Mate
VERSUS
Gangubai Yadavrao Mate And Others
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Aniket R. Sawant h/f Mr. Kiran M.
Nagarkar
AGP for Respondents: Mrs. M. L. Sangit
Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Mr. D. R. Adhav
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 06.02.2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. The petitioners are challenging the order dated 02.05.2018 passed
by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik in RTS/Revision/869/2017.
3. The petitioners are 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 v. State of Maharashtra and Others” 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.
Dilwale 2 26-WP-7805-18.odt
5. The petitioners may file revision before the State Government
within a period of six weeks. Delay caused in prosecuting the present writ
petition shall be taken into consideration while considering the
application for condonation of delay.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
Checking your session…