Sushil Ganeshrao Tayade v. Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner. Mr. S. M. Gorwadkar for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms. M. P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent No.4. CORAM : D. D. SINHA and A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 13TH JANUARY, 2010. P. C.: Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of grant of promotion to respondent No.3 to the post of sub-Engineer without finalising the seniority list. Learned Counsel for the Corporation, at the outset, submitted that the petitioner has alternate efficacious remedy under Section 451 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and therefore the petitioner should exhaust the said alternate remedy before approaching this Court.
In the circumstances, in view of the statement made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, we dismiss the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to exhaust the alternate remedy available in law. We expect the authority concerned to complete the entire process within the reasonable time. 2 Sd/- (D. D. SINHA, J.) Sd/-
(A. A. SAYED, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 — s. 451.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 13 Jan 2010. The bench was A A SAYED, D D SINHA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.