sk 1 wp6581.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.6581 OF 2010 Shri Suresh Jinnappa Chougule & Ors. : Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.Nilesh Wable i/b. Mr.Umesh R. Mankapure for the petitioners. Mr.Vijay Patil, Govt. Pleader for respondent nos.1, 3 & 4. Mr.A.R.Varma for respondent no.2. ... CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND SMT.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 07, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respective respondents. 2. At the outset, it is brought to the notice of tis Court that in view of the judgement rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.117 of 2011 (Mandatai Sambhaji Pawar and anr. v. The State of Maharashtra and others) on 3.5.2011, the present Writ Petition is not sk 2 wp6581.10 maintainable. 3. Considered the contentions canvassed and perused paragraph 11 of the said judgement which reads thus:- “11. For these reasons, having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in contention nos.1 and 2. As far as contention no.3 is concerned, in our view, the petitioners have an equally efficacious alternative remedy available to them either by raising such contention before the District Consumer Redressal Forum or by approaching the State Commission under section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and hence, we do not consider these to be fit cases for exercise of our extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 or 277 of the Constitution of India.” 4. In view of the above observattions made by the Division Bench of this Court, the present petition is not maintainable and the same is sk 3 wp6581.10 dismissed. Rule stands discharged. Interim relief stands vacated. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (SMT.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)