1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.1686 of 2008 (Sou. Bhagyashree Mahadeorao Binniwale and Ors. vs. The Divisional Commr., Amravati Division and Ors.) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CORAM : D.D.Sinha and Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, JJ. DATE : 22.4.2008. Heard Mr. R.S.Parsodkar, Adv. for the Petitioners and Mr.Kankale, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Present Writ Petition is directed against the order dt.8.4.2008 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati by invoking provisions of Section 39 (1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 holding that the petitioners have incurred disqualification. At the outset, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the counsel for the respondents that against the order passed u/s. 39 (1) of the Act, there is a substantive appeal provided u/s. 39 (3) of the said Act and the petitioners, without exhausting the statutory alternate remedy, have invoked extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the petition is not maintainable. Counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, has 2 submitted that the petitioners were not even made party to the proceedings before the Additional Commissioner initiated by the complainants. It is also contended that availability of alternate remedy does not take away jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain the present petition. Considered the rival contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and perused the provisions of Section 39 (1) and (3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. It is well settled that, in the normal course, the litigants are expected to exhaust the alternate statutory remedy available to them, particularly when it is efficacious and effective. However, it is also equally well settled that merely because there is an alternate statutory remedy available, that does not take away the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, such jurisdiction is required to be exercised sparingly when there is an alternate remedy available to the petitioner. In the instant case, the order impugned is passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati u/s. 39 (1) of the Act and since there is a statutory remedy of appeal provided u/s. 39 (3) of the Act, in our view, it will be appropriate for the petitioners to first exhaust the said remedy before invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to undertake the alternate remedy available in law. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners states that this Court has passed order on 16.4.2008 directing the parties to maintain status quo till further order and prayed that the same be continued for a period of fifteen days. The request has been opposed by the other side. Since the order of status quo is in existence, we continue the same for a period of fifteen days from today, which shall cease to operate automatically on expiry of fifteenth day from today. JUDGE JUDGE ssj