[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL W.P.NO.2000 OF 2008 Bharat Ashok Saali ..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr. Rahul Kulkarni advocate for petitioner Ms. A.A.Mane A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : OCTOBER 15, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 15, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 15, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner has impugned the order of externment passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Karveer Division, Karveer, Dist. Kolhapur against him. It is seen that the petitioner has not challenged the impugned order by preferring appeal before the State Government or the competent authority. 3. The learned advocate for the petitioner stated that it is not necessary to prefer appeal and the [-2-] petitioner can directly approach this Court. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on two decisions i.e. Mukesh Ramchandra Rajput Vs. Mukesh Ramchandra Rajput Vs. Mukesh Ramchandra Rajput Vs. State of Mah. & Ors. reported in 2005(1) State of Mah. & Ors. reported in 2005(1) State of Mah. & Ors. reported in 2005(1) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 364; and Umar Mohd. Malbari Vs. Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 364; and Umar Mohd. Malbari Vs. Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 364; and Umar Mohd. Malbari Vs. K.P.Gaikwad Dy.Commissioner of Police & Anr. K.P.Gaikwad Dy.Commissioner of Police & Anr. K.P.Gaikwad Dy.Commissioner of Police & Anr. Both the decisions are not of the Supreme Court. It is seen that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order by way of the present writ petition. The Supreme Court (Constitution Bench) in the case of Thansingh Nathmal Vs. The Superintendent of Thansingh Nathmal Vs. The Superintendent of Thansingh Nathmal Vs. The Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri and others; Taxes, Dhubri and others; Taxes, Dhubri and others; reported in AIR 1964 SC AIR 1964 SC AIR 1964 SC 1419 1419 1419 has observed that when there is provision of alternate remedy, writ petition should not be entertained. The case of Thansingh was not considered in both the decisions on which reliance is placed. In view of the said decision of the Supreme Court, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition, hence, petition is rejected. It is open to the petitioner to prefer appeal before the competent authority. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]