SHUBHAM DNYANESHWAR KALE vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU SECRETARY AND ORS — WP/5934/2026

Case under Right to Information Act, 2005 Section NA. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.

Next hearing 12-Jun-2026

CNR: HCBM010208852026

Filing Number

WP/12179/2026

Filing Date

23-Apr-2026

Registration No

WP/5934/2026

Registration Date

29-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam A. Ankhad

Coram

Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam A. Ankhad

Bench Type

Division

Category

ORDINARY CIVIL ( 30 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS ( 99 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Last updated 12-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Right to Information Act, 2005 Section NA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHUBHAM DNYANESHWAR KALE

    Adv. HARSHWARDHAN M PAWAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU SECRETARY AND ORS

  2. 2.MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONER

  3. 3.BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Adv. Rahul Nerlekar

Case History

  1. 12-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice,hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam A. AnkhadView PDF

    Case Summary: In WP 5934/2026, petitioner Shubham Dnyaneshwar Kale's writ petition against the State of Maharashtra and others was not taken up for hearing on 6th May 2026 due to paucity of time and heavy court board. The petitioner was granted liberty to move the matter before the Vacation Bench for consideration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-May-2026

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam A. Ankhad

  4. 30-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice,hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam A. AnkhadView PDF

  5. 30-Apr-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 23-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/5934/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: In WP 5934/2026, petitioner Shubham Dnyaneshwar Kale's writ petition against the State of Maharashtra and others was not taken up for hearing on 6th May 2026 due to paucity of time and heavy court board. The petitioner was granted liberty to move the matter before the Vacation Bench for consideration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case