(1) WP 8578.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8578 OF 2011 Vijay Sakharam Fadat and anr. PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. D.B. Pawar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 9TH JANUARY, 2012 ORAL ORDER: 1. Heard. 2. The Petition is objected to by the learned A.G.P. on the ground that the petitioners have an alternate efficacious remedy available to him in law. Shri Pawar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that merely because alternate remedy is available to the petitioners, it cannot be a ground for not entertaining the Petition. 3. It is a settled principle of law that non- exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a rule of self-restraint and (2) WP 8578.2011 that this Court would not be precluded from exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inspite of availability of alternate remedy, if the facts of the case so warrant. 4. The alternate remedy available to the petitioners is by way of an Original Application before the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal is functioning at Aurangabad itself and is situated at a distance of hardly 4 kms from this building. We do not see any reason as to why the petitioners should not be asked to have recourse to the alternate remedy available to them in law and as to why this Court should exercise extra- ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is therefore rejected, relegating the petitioners to the alternate remedy available to them in law. Sd/- Sd/- [M. T. JOSHI, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.] arp/