SHAILESH YAMAJI DHATRK vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NASHIK AND OTHERS

WP/6512/2017HC BombayHCBM03001999201709 February 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE2 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that an alternate and equally efficacious remedy was available before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), as some similarly situated employees had already approached it. Consequently, the Court granted permission to withdraw the present writ petitions. The petitions were disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the petitioners to file applications before the CAT within four weeks from the date of the order. The CAT was directed to decide these applications on their merits within six months thereafter. The Court also stipulated that any delay in filing the applications before the CAT, caused by prosecuting the writ petitions, would be considered by the CAT while deciding any application for condonation of delay. All issues were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Harshad Suresh Deo and others, filed multiple writ petitions before the Bombay High Court, challenging orders passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Mumbai. The respondents were the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik, and others. The petitioners stated that similarly situated employees had already approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The High Court was informed that an alternate and equally efficacious remedy was available before the CAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioners have an alternate and equally efficacious remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal (mixed question of law and fact, concerning the jurisdiction and availability of remedies under relevant administrative law provisions). The petitioners' contention, as stated by their counsel, was that an alternate and equally efficacious remedy was available before the Central Administrative Tribunal, citing that similarly situated employees had already approached the said Tribunal. The revenue's contentions were not recorded in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 5 WP 6511-2017.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 5 WRIT PETITION NO. 6511 OF 2017 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6539 OF 2017 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6513 OF 2017 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6512 OF 2017 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6531 OF 2017 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6514 OF 2017 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6532 OF 2017 HARSHAD SURESH DEO VERSUS THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NASHIK AND OTHERS … Ms.Pradnya Talekar h/f. Talekar and Associates – Advocate for Petitioners Mr. Alok Sharma – Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 Mr. D.R. Korde – AGP for Respondents, State … CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 09.02.2026 PER COURT : 1. In all these petitions, the petitioners are challenging the orders passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Mumbai. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners makes a statement that against the impugned orders, the petitioners have an alternate and equally efficacious remedy to file applications before the Central Administrative 2026:BHC-AUG:5702

2 5 WP 6511-2017.odt Tribunal, as some similarly situated employees have already approached the said Tribunal. 3. In view of the statement made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, permission is granted to withdraw the present petitions with liberty to file applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 4. The Writ Petitions are disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to file applications before the Tribunal within a period of four (4) weeks from today and if the applications are filed by the petitioners within the aforesaid period, the Tribunal shall decide the same within a period of six (6) months thereafter, on its own merits in accordance with law. 5. The delay caused in prosecuting the present petitions shall be taken into consideration by the Tribunal while considering the application for condonation of delay, if the applications filed within a period of four (4) weeks from today. 6. All issues are kept open. 7. Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ] Pooja Kale/

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →