UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF POSTS AND ORS vs SADASHIV MAHADU NAVALE S/O MAHADU NAVALE AND ORS — HCBM10048612026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226,227. Status: For Orders (Objection Not Removed). Next hearing: 24th June 2026.

For Orders (Objection Not Removed) Next hearing 24-Jun-2026 this date has passed

CNR: HCBM010048612026

e-Filing Number

24-01-2026

Filing Number

WP/2815/2026

Filing Date

29-Jan-2026

Judge

Shri. P. P. Jadhav, Registrar(Judl I)

Coram

Shri. P. P. Jadhav, Registrar(Judl I)

Bench Type

Division

Category

CAT related Service Matters ( 62 )

Sub-Category

Adverse Action ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226,227
Administrative Tribunal Act

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF POSTS AND ORS

    Adv. GARGE ANIRUDDHA ARUN

  2. 2.The Chief Postmaster General Maharashtra Circle

    Adv. ANIRUDDHA ARUN GARGE

  3. 3.The Postmaster General Mumbai Region

    Adv. ANIRUDDHA ARUN GARGE

  4. 4.The Postmaster General New Mumbai Region

    Adv. ANIRUDDHA ARUN GARGE

  5. 5.The Postmaster General, Aurangabad Region

    Adv. ANIRUDDHA ARUN GARGE

  6. 6.The Postmaster General, Nagpur Region

    Adv. ANIRUDDHA ARUN GARGE

  7. 7.The Director, Mumbai GPO

    Adv. ANIRUDDHA ARUN GARGE

  8. 8.The Sr Superintendent of Post Offices Amravati Division

    Adv. ANIRUDDHA ARUN GARGE

  9. 9.The Sr Superintendent of Post Offices New Mumbai Division

    Adv. ANIRUDDHA ARUN GARGE

  10. 10.The Sr Superintendent of Post Offices Nashik Division

    Adv. ANIRUDDHA ARUN GARGE

  11. 11.The Sr Superintendent of Post Offices Thane Division

    Adv. ANIRUDDHA ARUN GARGE

  12. 12.The Superintendent of Post Offices Malegaon Division

    Adv. ANIRUDDHA ARUN GARGE

  13. 13.The Sr Superintendent of Post Offices Nagpur Mofussil Division

    Adv. ANIRUDDHA ARUN GARGE

  14. 14.The Sr Superintendent of Post Offices

    Adv. ANIRUDDHA ARUN GARGE

  15. 15.The Sr Superintendent of Post Offices Mumbai North West

    Adv. ANIRUDDHA ARUN GARGE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SADASHIV MAHADU NAVALE S/O MAHADU NAVALE AND ORS

  2. 2.Ranjit Bhaurao Gaikwad, S/o Bhaurao Gaikwad

  3. 3.Smt Nileema Dilip Joshte, W/o Dilip Joshte

  4. 4.Shri Namdeo Ravaba Shirole, S/o Ravaba Shirole

  5. 5.Shivdas Gopal Shinde S/o Gopal Shinde

  6. 6.Suresh Ramchandra Hikare, S/o Ramchandra Hikare

  7. 7.Govind Gulab Sonar, S/o Gulab Sonar

  8. 8.Chandrakant Dattatraya Mhatre, S/o Dattatraya Mhatre

  9. 9.Raghunath Tukaram Gondane, S/o Tukaram Gondane

  10. 10.Pranita Pravin Bane, W/o Pravin Bane

  11. 11.Ashok Tukaram Chavan, S/o Tukaram Chavan

  12. 12.avnath Laxman Lonkar, S/o Laxman Lonkar

  13. 13.Diwakar Hari Panda, S/o Hari Panda

  14. 14.Satish Manohar Sawant, S/o Manohar Sawant

Case History

  1. 24-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 24-Jun-2026

    For Orders (Objection Not Removed)

    Shri. P. P. Jadhav, Registrar(Judl I)

  3. 09-Jun-2026

    Shri. P. P. Jadhav, Registrar(Judl I)View PDF

    Case Summary In Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 2815 of 2026, the Bombay High Court's Registrar (Judicial-I) granted the petitioners (Union of India through Department of Posts and officials) two weeks additional time to remove office objections that were previously notified on 27th April 2026. The petition had failed to cure these defects initially. Upon failure to comply within this extended period, the Registrar warned that registration would be refused under Rule 3 sub-rule (iii) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 27-Apr-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 29-Jan-2026

    Case filed

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary In Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 2815 of 2026, the Bombay High Court's Registrar (Judicial-I) granted the petitioners (Union of India through Department of Posts and officials) two weeks additional time to remove office objections that were previously notified on 27th April 2026. The petition had failed to cure these defects initially. Upon failure to comply within this extended period, the Registrar warned that registration would be refused under Rule 3 sub-rule (iii) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case