IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 969 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3002 OF 2026 IN WP/1315/2022 Prakash Dayanand Gurav VERSUS The Additional Divisional Commissioner And Others ... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Kolpe Mahendra B. AGP for Respondents-State: Mr. S. K. Shirse Advocate for Respondents No.2 to 4 : Mr. S. B. Munde ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1315 OF 2022 ... CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. Dated : August 25, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. The learned Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4 raises a preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing a revision under Rule 15(1)(c) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967. The learned Advocate for the petitioner states that the order of termination is based on breach of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the alternate remedy would not bar the present petition. 2. It is not in dispute that the order of termination was initially challenged in an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner under Rule 13(1)(e) of the said Rules. The revision is preferred against the said order. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to accept the argument of the learned Advocate for the petitioner with respect to Page 1 of 2 2026:BHC-AUG:38485-DB 969 CA 3002-2026 alternate remedy. Writ Petition is disposed of, relegating the petitioner to the alternate remedy of filing a revision under Rule 15(1)(c) of the said Rules. 3. The period from the date of filing of the petition, i.e. 21/01/2022, till date shall be excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation. 4. Since the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 20/08/2020 and a period of over six years has lapsed since then, the revisional authority is requested to decide the revision as early as possible and preferably before 31/03/2027. Pending Civil Application stands disposed of. ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. ) vj gawade/-. Page 2 of 2