1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10192 OF 2010 Gampu s/o Balu Pawar .. PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. S.T. Veer, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, AGP for the State. Mr. N.L. Jadhav, advocate for respondent no. 3. Mr. V.S. Panpatte, advocate for respondent no. 5. Mr. G.G. Kadam, advocate for respondent no. 6 to 9. Mr. Abhijit Choudhary, advocate holding for Mr. D.J. Choudhary, advocate for respondent nos. 10 to 15. Mr. P.S. Dighe, advocate holding for Mr. R.N. Dhorde, advocate for respondent no. 16. ===== CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 15 th NOVEMBER, 2010 PER COURT : 1 In view of disputed questions of fact, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition in the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2 2 In the event if the petitioner choses to avail of any other remedy available to him under law, dismissal of the present petition would not come in the way of the petitioner. Apart from that, if there is any delay, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefits of section 14 of the Limitation Act for the period for which the petitioner was bonafidely prosecuting the present petition. Petition stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE ) ( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE dyb/office/wp10192.10.odt