RAVINDRA DAGUJI THAKARE vs THE ADMINISTRATOR CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS — WP/5896/2026
Case under Bombay Village Panchayat Act Section NA. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
CNR: HCBM010177502026
Filing Number
WP/10309/2026
Filing Date
08-Apr-2026
Registration No
WP/5896/2026
Registration Date
29-Apr-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. Jamadar
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. Jamadar
Bench Type
Single
Category
ORDINARY CIVIL ( 30 )
Sub-Category
Orders passed by Quasi Judicial Authority Other than Labour and Industrial Court ( 105 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Last updated 11-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.RAVINDRA DAGUJI THAKARE
Adv. RAMESHWAR GITE
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE ADMINISTRATOR CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS
-
2.THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PANCHAYAT SAMITI
-
3.THE SECRETARY, GRAMPANCHAYAT VITAVE
-
4.THE MINISTER FOR VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, STATE MAHARASHTRA
-
5.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA TO BE SERVED THRO AGP
-
6.SAINATH NAGUJI KOLHE
Case History
-
15-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
15-Jun-2026
Fresh Admission
Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. Jamadar
-
04-May-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. JamadarView PDF
Summary: Writ Petition No.5896 of 2026 filed by Ravindra Daguji Thakare against the Administrator/CEO and others was heard on 4 May 2026. The High Court of Bombay issued notice to the respondents for final disposal, with the matter made returnable on 15 June 2026. Service was waived for Respondent Nos.4 and 5, while the petitioner was permitted to serve remaining respondents by private service. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
04-May-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
08-Apr-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WP/5896/2026
Summary: Writ Petition No.5896 of 2026 filed by Ravindra Daguji Thakare against the Administrator/CEO and others was heard on 4 May 2026. The High Court of Bombay issued notice to the respondents for final disposal, with the matter made returnable on 15 June 2026. Service was waived for Respondent Nos.4 and 5, while the petitioner was permitted to serve remaining respondents by private service. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts