FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 229 OF 2010 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 Preliminary objection about maintainability of this petition is raised by the Coun 229 sel for respondent on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy by way of appeal under Section 18 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. The Counsel appearing for the petitioner however, points out that the order, which is impugned in this petition is neither ascribable to sections 14, 15 or 17 of the Act. 3 We do not find any substance in this submission. The communication which is challenged in this petition itself refers to the provisions under which it has been issued. It clearly says that it is in relation to the action on account of non removal of deficiencies in regard to sections 14 and 15 of the Act. The Counsel for the petitioner however, submits that the communication by itself does not refer to such a fact. We are not impressed by this submission. The communication clearly refers to the earlier letter sent to the petitioner dated 29th June, 2007, which indeed, is in relation to matters provided in section 14 and 15 of the Act. The petitioner was called upon to remove these deficiencies, which the petitioner failed to do within the specified time. Suffice it to observe that as the action, which is impugned in this petition, is ascribable to sections 14 and/or 15 of the Act of 1993, the petitioner has statutory remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the Act against that decision. The petitioner will have to avail of that remedy in the first place. 4 In the fact situation, we do not think it appropriate to entertain the writ petition there 229 by circumventing the remedy of appeal. Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy of appeal, if so advised. In the event, the petitioner files such an appeal, the appellate authority while examining the question of limitation, may consider the fact that the petitioner, in the first place, approached this Court by way of writ petition. All questions are left open to be decided on its own merits by the appellate authority. (S.S. SHINDE, J) (A.M. KHANWILKAR,J) 14.01.2010. PLK/*