1 wp698.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 698 OF 2011 Jainarayan S/o Mohanlal Mundada and another ..PETITIONERS -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others. ..RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.B. Bhapkar, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr. M.S. Karad with Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for respondent no.4. Mr. K.J. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent nos. 6 and 8. Mr. R.V. Gore, Advocate for respondent no.5. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 25TH APRIL, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard Advocate Mr. Bhapkar for petitioner, Advocate Mr. Gore for respondent no.5, Advocate Mr. Suryawanshi for respondent nos. 6 and 8, Advocate Mr. M.S. Karad with Mr. S.S. Thombre for respondent no.4 and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3. 2. Advocate Mr. Gore has contended that the provisions of Rule 45(5) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967 provide an alternate remedy and hence 2 wp698.11 that remedy should be first exhausted. Advocate Mr. Bhapkar argues that remedy is not efficacious because appeals are never expeditiously decided and elected persons are permitted to complete their tenure. He relies upon the judgment delivered by me at Nagpur and reported at "2010(3) Mh.L.J. 190"-Hanumant @ Hemant Haribhau Thakre V/s Deorao Sudamrao Kadu and others to urge that such issue can be directly entertained in Writ Petition. He further argues that there is express order holding the present respondents responsible for lapses and that order was not questioned by them. As that order attained finality, disqualification is only consequence flowing from that order which needs to be applied. He contends that the respondent no.2 has refused to exercise jurisdiction available to him and thereby has protected the respondent nos. 5 to 8. 3. In reported judgment, the bar of alternate remedy was not pressed into service and that question was not required to be gone into. 4. Provisions of Rule are very clear and petitioner has alternate remedy under Rule 45(5) of the Rules. Hence, with liberty to petitioner to exhaust that remedy, the present Petition is disposed of. No costs. 3 wp698.11 5. If the appeal as contemplated by section 45(5) is filed within three weeks from today by the petitioner, the respondent no.1 (Appellate Authority) shall attempt to decide the same finally as early as possible and in any case by 30th September, 2011 including the issue of condonation of delay. 6. The petitioner shall before filing such appeal serve the copy of same upon the respondent nos. 5 to 8. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp698.11