1 wp5638.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5638 OF 2010 Laxman Madhavrao Pawar and others Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. Respondents ------- Shri R.N.Dhorde, Adv. i/b Shri R.L.Kute, Adv. for Petitioners. Shri S.V.Kurundkar, Addl.G.P. for Resps. No.1 to 3. Shri R.K.Temkar, Advocate, for Respondent No. 5. Shri G.K. Thigle, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7. -------- Coram: Smt. Nishita Mhatre & M.T. Joshi, JJ. Date : 15th June, 2011. P. C. 01. This petition has been preferred with respect to the nomination of certain persons, as councillors. 02. Shri Thigle, the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, points out that under Section 21 of the Maharashtra (Municipal Councils) (Nagar Panchayats) and Industrial Township Act, 1965, disputes in respect of an election or nomination of councillors can be raised, or presented before the District Court by a candidate or any person entitled to vote at an election, within ten days from the date of publication of names of the councillors. He points out that an alternate efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners to approach the District Court for redressal of their grievances. In these circumstances, he submits that the petition ought to be dismissed. 03. Shri Dhorde, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that although this petition is filed in the year 2010, the learned 2 wp5638.10 counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 has been seeking adjournments time and again, in the present case. He further submits that, to direct the petitioners at this stage to approach the District Court, would cause grave injustice to them, as the term itself would come to an end within six months from today. He further submits that the writ petition is maintainable, although an alternate remedy is available to the petitioners. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Committee of Management vs. Vice-Chancellor, 2009 (3) ALL MR 907 (SC). He further submits that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Jairam Shindevs. Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai, reported in 2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 465, it is only a question of law, which requires to be considered and made applicable to the fact-situation in the present case. In such circumstances, according to the learned Counsel, the petitioners should not be driven to avail of the remedy provided under the Maharashtra (Municipal Councils) (Nagar Panchayats) and Industrial Township Act, 1965. 04. We are aware that there is no absolute bar to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, although an alternate remedy is available to the petitioners. It is true that there is no sacrosanct rule which prevents us from entertaining the petition. However, it is a self imposed restriction whereby, the High Court curtails its powers to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when an alternate remedy is available. 05. In the present case, the dispute is an election dispute, in respect of which, a statutory remedy is available to the petitioners. We are, 3 wp5638.10 therefore, of the opinion that the petitioners ought to have exhausted that remedy before approaching this court. Merely because the petition has been pending since June 2010, or that the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 sought adjournments, it would not necessarily mean that the statutory remedy available to the petitioners, should not be invoked. 06. In our opinion, therefore, the writ need not be entertained under this Court's extraordinary jurisdiction. 07. Petition rejected. (M. T. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) pnd/wp5638.10