Bombay High Court
SUSHILA BADHU PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed because the petitioner has an alternate and equally efficacious remedy of filing a second revision before the State Government.
Summary
The petitioner, Sushila Badhu Patil, challenged an order dated 31 January 2014 issued by the Additional Collector, Nandurbar, which allowed an appeal filed by a respondent, and a subsequent revision order dated 10 January 2017 from the Additional Commissioner, Nashik, which rejected the petitioner's revision. The petitioner argued that the order should be set aside by the High Court. The Court observed that the petitioner has an alternate and equally efficacious remedy by filing a second revision before the State Government, a point previously considered by the Supreme Court in Gurudassing Nawoosing Panjwani v. State of Maharashtra. Relying on the principle that a writ petition should not be entertained when an alternative remedy is available, the Court declined to interfere. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, and the petitioner was directed to file a second revision within eight weeks, with any delay to be considered by the revisional authority.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition should be dismissed when an alternate and equally efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner.
- Whether the order of the Additional Collector and the subsequent revision order can be challenged directly by a writ.
Subjects
- writ petition
- alternate remedy
- revision
- administrative law
- jurisdiction
- condonation of delay
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:15711
14.WP.8981.2017.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8981 OF 2017
Sushila Badhu Patil ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents
***
Mr. Chaudhari S.U., Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. D. S. Jape, AGP for Respondent – State.
***
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : APRIL 08, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard Mr. Choudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 31 st January
2014, passed by Additional Collector, Nandurbar in RTS/Appeal No.20
of 2011, whereby the appeal filed by respondent No.7 came to be
allowed and the order dated 10 th January 2017 passed by the
Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in RTS/Revision
No.142 of 2014, whereby the revision application filed by the
petitioner came to be rejected.
3. The petitioner is having an alternate and equally
efficacious remedy against the order passed by the Additional
Shrikant Malani Page 1 of 2
14.WP.8981.2017.odt
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 of Gurudassing Nawoosing Panjwani Vs. State of Maharashtra
& Ors.1
4. In view thereof, I am not inclined to interfere in the
present writ petition on the ground of having an alternate remedy.
Hence, writ petition is disposed of.
5. The petitioner may file second revision before the State
Government within a period of eight weeks. Delay in prosecuting the
present writ petition shall be taken into consideration by revisional
authority while considering the application for condonation of delay.
( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )
1 2015 AIR SCW 6277
Shrikant Malani Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…