1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4534 of 2009 Alok Mohan Senwar VERSUS Director, Economics and Statistics Deptt., Mah. State, Mumbai - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S. R. Narnaware, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. P. D. Kothari, A.G.P. for the Respondent Sole CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : JUNE 9, 2011. Heard Mr. S. R. Narnaware, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. D. Kothari, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent. By this petition, the petitioner prays for setting aside the termination order, passed by the Respondent – Director, Economics and Statistics Department, Maharashtra State, on 17/1/2008 with a further direction to reinstate the petitioner in service in view of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Mr. Kothari, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent states that the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy of approaching the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. According to the learned A.G.P., in view of an alternate efficacious remedy, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 2 Mr. Narnaware, learned counsel for the petitioner states that this Court has, by an order dated 12/01/2009 in Writ Petition No. 6254/2006, granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of termination and seek protection of service by filing a fresh petition. On a perusal of the facts of the case, it is clear that the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy of approaching the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in an appeal under Section 19 of The Administrative Tribunals Act. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that this Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the termination order by filing fresh petition, by an order dated 12/1/2009 in Writ Petition No. 6254/2006, is ill-founded as this Court had allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition and observed that the petitioner was at liberty to avail appropriate proceedings, if available in law. The order passed by this Court on 12/1/2009 is clear and unambiguous. It merely grants liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate proceedings, available in law and does not grant any liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition in this Court. Hence, the writ petition is disposed with with no order as to costs. The points raised in this petition are, however, kept open. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale