WP/5909/10 1 SSK/28 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5909 OF 2010 M/s. Maryknoll Corporation ....Petitioner Versus Mr. Abdul Salam Shaikh & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Tushar Goradia, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. G. S. Godbole i/b. M.S.Legal, Advocates for Respondent No.1. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for State. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 25th AUGUST, 2010. P.C.: Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. It is not disputed that against the impugned order, a revision under section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 is maintainable. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of 1) Harbanslal Sahnia & Anr. Vs. Indian Oil Corpn.Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 107, 2) Ram and Shyam Company Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1147, 3) State of H.P. & Ors. Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. & Anr. reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3936, and 4) Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai reported in 2003(4) ALL MR 761 (S.C.). The Apex Court in the above WP/5909/10 2 SSK/28 decisions held that the High Court can, despite an alternative remedy, entertain writ petition atleast in three contingencies viz.(i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. 3. Having perused the compilation of the writ petition, I am satisfied that the petition does not fall under any of the categories mentioned above. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to file revision challenging the impugned order before the appropriate Court. (R. V. MORE, J.)