Bombay High Court
KISHOR KISANRAO KADAM AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petition is dismissed because an alternative remedy is available, and the writ petition cannot be entertained.
Summary
The petitioners challenged an order dated 03‑06‑2020 issued by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, and a subsequent corrigendum dated 16‑10‑2020 that altered the Commissioner’s earlier finding that a 06‑01‑2015 order of the Sub‑Divisional Officer was confirmed. They argued that the Commissioner lacked authority to issue such a corrigendum. The respondents contended that the petitioners had an efficacious alternative remedy – a second revision before the State Government – relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Gurudassing Nawoosing Panjwani v. State of Maharashtra (2015 AIR SCW 6277). The Court, applying the principle that an alternative remedy bars a writ petition, refused to entertain the petition and disposed of it on the ground of alternate remedy, directing the petitioners to file a second revision within six weeks. All issues were kept open for further consideration in the revision proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the Additional Divisional Commissioner had the jurisdiction to issue a corrigendum altering his earlier order.
- Whether the existence of an alternative remedy (a second revision before the State Government) bars the filing of the writ petition.
Subjects
- writ petition
- revision
- alternative remedy
- administrative law
- corrigendum
- jurisdiction
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:499
1 of 2 1023-WP.8289.2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
1023 WRIT PETITION NO. 8289 OF 2021
KISHOR KISANRAO KADAM AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
...
Mr. Shrikant B. Madde, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. A. D. Wange, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5-State.
Mr. Tukaram M. Venjane, Advocate for Respondent Nos.6 to 8.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 8th JANUARY, 2026
P.C.:-
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.
2. By the present petition, the Petitioners are assailing the order
dated 03.06.2020 passed by Respondent No.2-Additional Divisional
Commissioner, Aurangabad, as well as the corrigendum thereto dated
16.10.2020. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners vehemently submits
that while deciding the matter on 03.06.2020, the Commissioner
observed that the order dated 06.01.2015 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer was confirmed. However, subsequently, by issuing a
corrigendum, it was stated that the said order dated 06.01.2015 was
set aside. On this ground, it is contended that the Commissioner had
no power to issue such a corrigendum.
3. Learned AGP and learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 6 to
Tauseef
2 of 2 1023-WP.8289.2021
8 point out that the Petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy
of filing a second revision before the State Government. In support of
their contention, reliance is placed on the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Gurudassing Nawoosing Panjwani Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2015 AIR SCW 6277, decided on
06.11.2015.
4. In view thereof, on the ground of availability of an
alternative remedy, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of on the ground of alternate
remedy.
5. The Petitioners are at liberty to file a second revision before
the State Government within a period of six weeks from today. The
period spent in prosecuting the present petition shall be taken into
consideration by the State Government while seeking condonation of
delay. In the event the Petitioners file the revision within a period of six
weeks, the State Government is directed to decide the said revision
within a period of six months thereafter.
6. All issues are kept open.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
Checking your session…