Advocates:
['MANEY V M', 'COPY SERVED ON GP', '', 'NO CAVEAT']

{1}

wp621020.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.6210 OF 2020

Shrikant s/o Vitthalrao Mundhe

Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & others

Respondents

Mr.V.M.Maney, advocate for the petitioner.

Mrs.G.L.Deshpande, AGP for the Respondents.

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND

SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

DATE : 14^th September, 2020.

PC :

1

The petitioner had challenged the order of

suspension before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,

Bench at Aurangabad. The Original Application fled by the

petitioner is disposed of in view of the fact that the petitioner

had not availed alternate remedy.

2

Mr.Maney, learned Counsel for the petitioner, relying

on the following judgments submits that availability of alternate

remedy is not a bar for the Court to exercise its jurisdiction.

(i)

Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade

Marks, Mumbai & others, AIR 1999 SC 22;

{2}

wp621020.odt

(ii)

M.P. State Agro Industries Development

Corporation Ltd. & another Vs. Jahan Khan,

(2007) 10 SCC 88;

(iii)

State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr.Subhash

Dhondiram Mane, 2015(4) Mh.L.J. 791;

3

The learned Counsel for the petitioner further

submits that the Collector is not the appointing authority. In view

of that, he does not have power to suspend the petitioner. As

the order of suspension is by an incompetent person, the Tribunal

ought to have entertained the Original Application. According to

the learned Counsel, this Court can exercise its jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution and set aside the order of

suspension passed by the incompetent person. It is only the

appointing authority who could have suspended the petitioner

and not the Collector.

4

There are no fetters on the powers of this Court

under Article 226 of the Constitution. True that availability of an

alternate remedy is not an embargo on the powers of this Court.

It needs to be appreciated that the petitioner had challenged the

order of suspension before the Maharashtra Administrative

Tribunal. The Tribunal, on the ground that the petitioner has an

alternate remedy available, refused to exercise its discretion. In

its discretion, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has

{3}

wp621020.odt

declined to entertain the Original Application. The petitioner has

an alternate remedy available with him. The alternate remedy is

provided by the Statute itself. Rule 17 of the Maharashtra Civil

Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1979, provides remedy of

appeal and the appellate authorities are provided under Rule 18

of the said Rules. As such, the discretion has been exercised by

the Tribunal in not entertaining the Original Application. As the

said exercise of discretion cannot be said to be arbitrary or

entirely illegal, we refrain ourselves from entertaining the writ

petition. The petitioner, certainly, has an alternate remedy

available, which the petitioner may avail. In that regard, all

contentions of the parties are kept open.

5

Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI

S.V.GANGAPURWALA

JUDGE

JUDGE

adb