Bombay High Court
INDU VISHWANATHRAO JADHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as the petitioner is disinterested and has an alternative statutory remedy.
Summary
The petitioner, Indu Vishwanathrao Jadhav, filed a writ petition challenging a termination order. The court attempted to serve notice but could not locate the petitioner, and noted that the petition had not been pursued since 2016, indicating lack of interest. The court observed that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy, rendering the writ petition unnecessary. Consequently, the court declined to entertain the petition under its writ jurisdiction. The petition was therefore dismissed and disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition challenging the termination order should be entertained despite the petitioner's non-appearance and availability of alternative statutory remedies.
Subjects
- writ petition
- termination order
- jurisdiction
- notice
- non-appearance
- alternative remedy
- dismissal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:37158-DB
5 WP NO. 8343 OF 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8343 OF 2016
Indu Vishwanathrao Jadhav
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Anothers
…
• Mr. S. R. Yadav-Lonikar, AGP for Respondents - State
…
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 17th AUGUST, 2026
PER COURT :
1. By an order dated 08.06.2026, notice was issued to the
petitioner, as the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has
since been elevated as a Judge of the Bombay High Court, Bench at
Aurangabad. However, the said notice could not be served, as the
petitioner was not found at the address mentioned in the petition, as
reflected from the bailiff's report.
2. It further appears that since the year 2016, the petition has
not been circulated. The aforesaid circumstances clearly indicate that
the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the present petition.
3. Apart from the above, the petition challenges an order of
termination. The petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy
available under law. Therefore, even otherwise, this Court is not
inclined to entertain the present petition in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction.
4. In view of the above, the writ petition deserves to be
dismissed and is accordingly disposed of.
[JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
Jhs/ 1/1
Checking your session…