1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7382 OF 2008 Rahul s/o Ramal Bora, R/o-Jijamata Road, Beed, Tq. and Dist-Beed. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Water Supply and Saintation Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2) The District Project Director, Jalswarajya Project and Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, 3) The District Project Co-ordinator Jalswarajya Project and Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, 4) Dhanraj V. Nila, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, R/o-Zilla Parishad, Beed, 5) The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Majalgaon, Dist-Beed. 6) The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Dharur, Dist-Beed. ...RESPONDENTS. 2 ... Shri.K.J. Suryawanshi Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Shri.N.L. Jadhav Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 27TH APRIL, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated 30th May, 2008 addressed by the District Project Director, Jalswarajya Project and Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed to the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Majalgaon, Dist-Beed. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that prima facie reading of the impugned communication demonstrates that nothing is alleged against the Petitioner and therefore the 3 communication made to the Authorities to lodge criminal case against the Petitioner may be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that no F.I.R. is lodged with the police since last two years. 4. In the facts of the case, it will not be appropriate for the Writ Court to enter into the question in respect of innocence of the Petitioner. It will not be appropriate for this Court to give clean chit to the Petitioner as the same requires examination of the facts of the case. In the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the Petitioner may resort to the alternate remedy as available and permissible to the Petitioner in law. 5. In exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, no interference is called for. Writ Petition is dismissed. We express no opinion on the merits of the matter. 4 6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner will file representation before the Authorities concerned. The Petitioner is entitled to file a representation before the Authorities concerned. [A.V. POTDAR, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/APR10/wp7382.08