Sangram S/O Tanaji Ingale vs The State Of Maharashtra
2023 Latest Caselaw 693 Bom

                                                                  902 wp1578-23.docx

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
       Digitally
       signed by
       TRUSHA
                                   ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
TRUSHA TUSHAR
TUSHAR MOHITE
MOHITE Date:
       2023.01.21
       10:51:11
       +0530
                                     WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1578 OF 2023


                    Sangram Tanaji Ingale & Ors.                     ..... Petitioners

                             Vs.

                    The State of Maharashtra and Ors.                ..... Respondents


                    Mr.Devidas Shelke i/b Mr.Shrirang Katneshwarkar a/w Mr.Deepak
                    Pote for the Petitioners

                    Mr.Abhay L. Patki, Addl. G.P. for the State


                                            CORAM:     S.V.GANGAPURWALA, ACJ &
                                                       SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

                                            DATED :    JANUARY 19, 2023

                    P.C.

                    1        The learned A.G.P. raised a preliminary objection that the

Petitioners have a remedy before the Maharashtra Administrative

Tribunal.

2 Moreover, Mr.Shelke the learned Counsel for the Petitioners

submits that the Respondents have violated the fundamental right of

the Petitioners. The Application of the Petitioners is not considered.

The Petitioners are entitled to participate in the recruitment process

having worked as Information Assistant for 9 to 10 years and after

three years, they are entitled for participating in the recruitment

Mohite 1/4 902 wp1578-23.docx

process for the post of Deputy Director (Information), District

Information Officer and Information Officer as they are entitled to be

promoted as Information Officer.

3 Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the

case of Radha Krishnan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

and Others1.

4 The Apex Court in the case of Radha Krishnan Industries

(Supra) has laid down principles for maintainability of the Writ

Petition though the alternate remedy is available. The same are

culled out as under by the Apex Court as under:

"27 The principles of law which emerge are that :

(i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well;

(ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person;

(iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where

(a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution;

(b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged;

(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition

1 (2021) 6 SCC 771

Mohite 2/4 902 wp1578-23.docx

should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law;

(v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion; and

(vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with."

5 The exceptions to the Rule of alternate remedy are culled out.

So also, the word of caution has been laid by the Apex Court where

the High Court has the discretion not to entertain the Writ Petition.

One of the restriction placed on the power of the High Court is where

an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person. It

has also further observed that ordinarily, a Writ Petition should not

be entertained when efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law.

6 It is not debated that dispute of the present nature can be filed

before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. In fact, the

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is constituted to consider the

dispute of the present nature. When the alternate efficacious

remedy is available in the shape of the remedy before the

Mohite 3/4 902 wp1578-23.docx

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, this court would not exercise

its jurisdiction.

7 Reference can be had to the judgment of the Apex Court in the

case of L. Chandrakumar Vs. Union of India and others2.

8 Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the

Petitioners to avail alternate remedy. In that event, all contentions

are kept open. No costs.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J)                     (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)




2   AIR 1997 SC 1125

Mohite                                                           4/4