RUSKAR ANIS PATEL AND ORS vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. — HCBM10140732026

Case under Right of Persons with Disabilities Act. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.

CNR: HCBM010140732026

Next Hearing

19th June 2026

Filing Number

WP/8126/2026

Filing Date

23-03-2026

Judge

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

Coram

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

Bench Type

Division

Category

MAT ( 35 )

Sub-Category

OTHER ( 99 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Acts & Sections

Right of Persons with Disabilities Act

Petitioner(s)

RUSKAR ANIS PATEL AND ORS

Adv. SACHIN A AMBULKAR

SHIVAJI MANIKRAO WANE

ASHWIN GULAB PARDHI

Respondent(s)

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRO THE SECRETARY

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRO THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRO THE SECRETARY, PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES WELFARE DEPARTMENT

MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THRO THE SECRETARY

PRATIK KUBER SHINDE

Hearing History

Judge: Shri. P. P. JADHAV, Registrar(Judl I)

22-04-2026

OBJECTIONS TO BE REMOVED

19-06-2026

FOR ORDERS (OBJECTION NOT REMOVED)

Orders

08-05-2026
Shri. P. P. JADHAV, Registrar(Judl I)

Case Summary: Writ Petition No. 8126 of 2026 was adjourned by the Bombay High Court on 08/05/2026. The petitioners and their advocate failed to remove office objections after being notified on 22 April 2026. The Registrar (Judicial-I) granted a final two-week extension (excluding summer vacation) to cure the defects, with warning that failure to comply will result in refusal of registration under Rule 3(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.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Writ Petition No. 8126 of 2026 was adjourned by the Bombay High Court on 08/05/2026. The petitioners and their advocate failed to remove office objections after being notified on 22 April 2026. The Registrar (Judicial-I) granted a final two-week extension (excluding summer vacation) to cure the defects, with warning that failure to comply will result in refusal of registration under Rule 3(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.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case