Rahul S/O Bhimrao Kukday v. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Home Department, New Delhi And Others
1 wp3818.14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3818 OF 2014 [Rahul s/o Bhimrao Kukday .vs. Union of India and others] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.K. Pardhy, counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Surabhi Pathak, counsel h/f Shri Rohit Deo, ASGI for the respondents. ..........
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND A.M. BADAR, JJ.
DATED : APRIL 28, 2015.
By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F. Nagpur dated May 2011 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of his termination.
Ms. Pathak, the learned counsel h/f Shri Rohit Deo, learned ASGI appearing on behalf of the respondents, states that the writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing a revision under Rule 29 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. It is stated that the petitioner has rushed to this court without availing the alternate remedy.
On a perusal of the provisions of the Rule 29 of the Rules, 1955, we uphold the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents and decline to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of, with no order as to costs. The points raised in the petition are kept open. If the revision is filed by the petitioner within a period of two weeks, the revisional authority may consider the same in accordance with law. Order accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande