IMRAN KHAN GHULAM GHAUS vs THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MUNICIPAL EDUCATION BOARD AND ORS — HCBM10164912026
Case under Mah. Muncipalties Act. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.
CNR: HCBM010164912026
Filing Number
WP/9541/2026
Filing Date
02-Apr-2026
Judge
Shri. P. P. Jadhav, Registrar(Judl I)
Coram
Shri. P. P. Jadhav, Registrar(Judl I)
Bench Type
Division
Category
LOCAL BODY MATTERS OTHER THAN ELECTION, LABOUR AND SERVICE ( 61 )
Sub-Category
Municipal Corporation ( 1 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Last updated 20-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.IMRAN KHAN GHULAM GHAUS
Adv. NIKHIL G HIRE
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MUNICIPAL EDUCATION BOARD AND ORS
-
2.THE COMMISSIONER MALEGAON MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
-
3.THE DIVISIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION NASHIK DIVISION
-
4.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. ITS SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
-
5.THE HEAD MASTER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION NEW URDU
Case History
-
19-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
19-Jun-2026
Shri. P. P. Jadhav, Registrar(Judl I)View PDF
Case Summary In Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 9541 of 2026, the Bombay High Court's Registrar (Judicial-I) granted a two-week extension to petitioner Imran Khan Ghulam Ghaus and his advocate to remove office objections to the petition. The petition had been previously notified for removal of such objections on 8 May 2026, but the petitioner failed to comply. Rather than outright dismissal under Rule 3(iii), the court provided an additional opportunity, with warning that failure to remove objections within two weeks would result in refusal of registration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
08-May-2026
Objections To Be Removed
Assistant Registrar
-
02-Apr-2026
Case filed
Case Summary In Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 9541 of 2026, the Bombay High Court's Registrar (Judicial-I) granted a two-week extension to petitioner Imran Khan Ghulam Ghaus and his advocate to remove office objections to the petition. The petition had been previously notified for removal of such objections on 8 May 2026, but the petitioner failed to comply. Rather than outright dismissal under Rule 3(iii), the court provided an additional opportunity, with warning that failure to remove objections within two weeks would result in refusal of registration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts