1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3566 OF 2009 Dr. Nagnath Rambhau Pandhavale ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Mah. & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr A.S. Bayas, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr S.K. Kadam, AGP for respondents no.1 & 2. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND R. K. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 16th June, 2009 PER COURT : This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for quashing the judgment and order dated 19.12.2006 rendered by the Nagpur Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner also prays for quashing Govt. Resolution dated 31.3.2009 and communication dated 15.4.2009 reverting the petitioner from the promotional post of Assistant Commissioner, Animal Husbandry. 2. It appears that certain proceedings came to be filed by one Kishore Mahadeorao Tambde before the Nagpur Bench of the Maharashtra 2 Administrative Tribunal. The proceedings were registered as Original Application No.474 of 2005. The proceedings ultimately culminated in the Tribunal passing certain directions. Thereafter the applicant in the Original Application No.474 of 2005 moved an application praying therein for directions to the respondents no.1 & 2 for forthwith issuing promotion order to the applicant therein on the post of Assistant Commissioner, Animal Husbandry and to give deemed date of promotion. It appears that certain orders came to be passed by the Nagpur Bench of the Administrative Tribunal. 3. As a sequel or as a fall out of the aforesaid directions, it is contended by the petitioner before us that the petitioner was served with the impugned order dated 15.4.2009 reverting the petitioner from the promotional post to a post lower in rank. The petitioner contends that he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before the order of reversion came to be passed. 4. According to us the present petition is not maintainable before us. Insofar as the challenge to the order reverting the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has alternate remedy available of filing the appropriate application before the Aurangabad Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner has challenged the judgment rendered by the Nagpur Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and we do not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain challenge to the aforesaid judgment. The petitioner may, if he so desires, to file proceedings before the Court having the 3 territorial jurisdiction for challenging the order of the Tribunal. 5. In the light of the availability of alternate efficacious remedies to the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere in this petition. The petitioner, if advised, may avail the alternate remedies available to him in law. The petition is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. [ R. K. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] amj/wp3566.09