1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 674/2008 (M/s Sundaram & anr. Vs. M.C., Amravati & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA & SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATED : MAY 2, 2008. Heard Mr. Purohit for petitioner, Mr. Kaptan for respondent no.1 and Mrs. Bodade, A.G.P., for respondent no.5. At the outset, Mr. Kaptan, the learned counsel for the Corporation, has brought to our notice that Section 406 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, which provides an alternate remedy to the petitioner which is effective and efficacious. In order to justify this aspect, Mr. Kaptan has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Mahratta Chamber of Commerce, Industries & Agriculture & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2003(4) All MR 32. 2 In the backdrop of the above referred facts, it is apparent that the petitioner has an alternate remedy available in law, and hence we do not propose to show any indulgence in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail an alternate remedy available in law. It is needless to mention that so far as the limitation is concerned, since the petitioner has approached this Court and the matter was pending for some time, we expect the appellate authority to consider this aspect while considering the aspect of delay, if any, in filing the appeal. JUDGE JUDGE RMP