Ganesh Pawar And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

9. wp 6251.22 Urmila Ingale

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6251 OF 2022 Ganesh Pawar and ors.

.. Petitioners Vs.

The State of Maharashtra and ors.

.. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6274 OF 2022 Mangesh Zade and ors.

.. Petitioners Vs.

The State of Maharashtra and ors.

.. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6275 OF 2022 Ram Popat Rwalu and ors.

.. Petitioners Vs.

The State of Maharashtra and ors.

.. Respondents ------------ Mr. Pramod D. Avhad a/w Ms. Darshna Naval, for Petitioners in WP/6251/2022 & WP/6274/2022.

Mr. P. G. Gujar, for Petitioners in WP/6275/2022. Mr. B. V. Samant, AGP for State in all WPs.

Mr. Sandeep Dere a/w Ms. Pooja Mankoji, for Respondents No. 4 to 9 in WP/6274/2022 & for Respondents No. 4 to 8 in WP/6275/2022.

Mr. Gaurav Bandiwadekar, for Respondents No. 4 & 5 in WP/6251/2022.

------------ CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & M. S. KARNIK, J.

DATE : JULY 13, 2022 by URMILA PRAMOD INGALE Date:

2022.07.14 19:17:40 +0530 URMILA PRAMOD INGALE

9. wp 6251.22 P.C. :

1.

In these three writ petitions, the order under challenge is common, i.e., the order dated April 11, 2022 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (hereafter "the Tribunal", for short). Such order disposed of Original Application No. 301 of 2022.

2.

None of the petitioners were parties to the proceedings before the Tribunal. Since the petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated April 11, 2022, their remedy lies in approaching the Tribunal by presenting an appropriate application, either original or review. 3.

The view that we are taking finds support from the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in (1997) 6 SCC 473 (K. Ajit Babu and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.) and (2007) 14 SCC 54 (Rama Rao Vs. M.G. Maheshwara Rao & ors.).

4.

These writ petitions are not entertained and stand dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Tribunal in accordance with law. No costs.

5.

All contentions are left open.

(M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)