SANTOSH SUBHASH THAKUR vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, DEPT. OF TRIBAL DEV. AND ORS — HCBM10143872026
Case under Sc, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.
CNR: HCBM010143872026
Next Hearing
18th June 2026
Filing Number
WP/8296/2026
Filing Date
24-03-2026
Judge
Shri. P. P. JADHAV, Registrar(Judl I)
Coram
Shri. P. P. JADHAV, Registrar(Judl I)
Bench Type
Division
Category
CASTE CERTIFICATE ( 5 )
Sub-Category
ADMISSION ( 1 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SANTOSH SUBHASH THAKUR
Adv. Sushant Yeramwar Jinturkar
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, DEPT. OF TRIBAL DEV. AND ORS
THE SCHEDULED TRIBE CERTIFICATE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE, NASHIK DIVISION, NASHIK -
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (HEADQUARTER) THANE CITY, THANE
Hearing History
Judge: Shri. P. P. JADHAV, Registrar(Judl I)
OBJECTIONS TO BE REMOVED
FOR ORDERS (OBJECTION NOT REMOVED)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | OBJECTIONS TO BE REMOVED |
| 18-06-2026 | FOR ORDERS (OBJECTION NOT REMOVED) |
Orders
In Writ Petition No. 8296 of 2026, the Bombay High Court's Registrar (Judicial-I) granted petitioner Santosh Subhash Thakur a final two-week opportunity (excluding summer vacation) to remove office objections after he and his advocate failed to do so when notified on April 21, 2026. The court warned that failure to remove these objections within the extended timeframe 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.
In Writ Petition No. 8296 of 2026, the Bombay High Court's Registrar (Judicial-I) granted petitioner Santosh Subhash Thakur a final two-week opportunity (excluding summer vacation) to remove office objections after he and his advocate failed to do so when notified on April 21, 2026. The court warned that failure to remove these objections within the extended timeframe 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