*1* wp.8948.10.917.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8948 OF 2010 Madhav Karbhari Shejwal and others. ..Petitioners -Versus- Hari Sakharam Shejwal and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.Shriram S. Kulkarni, for the Petitioners. Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 11th July, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 06.08.2008, the order dated 13.04.2009 and the order dated 29.08.2009 respectively of the Collector, the Commissioner and the Minister of Revenue & Forest Department, Government of Maharashtra. In each of these orders, it is held that the remedy of the Petitioners to question the acts of a person posing as their power of attorney holder is to approach the competent civil court or criminal court and seek such declaration as permissible in law. In the peculiar facts of this case, how this observation can be said to be vitiated by error apparent on the face of record or perverse so as to call for interference of this Court in writ jurisdiction, is not clarified at all. The Petitioners have all remedies available in law and the observations of the authorities under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code will not be conclusive as they do not have any binding character so far as adjudication by the competent civil court is concerned. Equally, this *2* wp.8948.10.917.sxw observation does not exonerate guilty from the consequences of the penal law. 2 In such circumstances, the Writ Petition cannot be entertained and it is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)