Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two writ petitions filed by individuals whose appointments as nominees on District Level Committees for verification of claims under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Office Manual, 1975 were cancelled by the State Government. The petitioners challenged the cancellation before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petitions, arguing that the petitioners had an alternate remedy before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Court examined the issue of whether it should entertain the petitions despite the availability of an alternate remedy. The Court noted that while the existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction, the petitioners must demonstrate exceptional circumstances to bypass the statutory remedy. The petitioners failed to show any such exceptional circumstances. Consequently, the Court dismissed both writ petitions on the ground of availability of alternate remedy, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The Court also disposed of the civil application.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternate Remedy - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - The Court held that mere existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, but the petitioners failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances warranting bypassing the statutory remedy before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The petitions were dismissed on the ground of availability of alternate remedy. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Nominee Appointments - Cancellation - Maharashtra Land Revenue Office Manual, 1975 - The petitioners were appointed as nominees on District Level Committees for verification of claims under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Office Manual, 1975. Their appointments were cancelled by the State Government. The Court did not adjudicate the merits of the cancellation due to the availability of alternate remedy. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should entertain writ petitions challenging cancellation of appointments of nominees on District Level Committees under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Office Manual, 1975, when an alternate remedy is available before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed on the ground of availability of alternate remedy before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. Civil Application No.6255 of 2021 is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Alternate remedy
- Administrative Tribunals Act
- 1985
- Article 226
- Writ jurisdiction
- Service matters
- Nominee appointments
- Cancellation of appointment
- Exceptional circumstances
