SANJAY SAHADEO ANABHAWANE vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. G. P. AND ORS — WP/6534/2026
Case under Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules Section NA. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 08th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM010238172026
Filing Number
WP/13965/2026
Filing Date
06-May-2026
Registration No
WP/6534/2026
Registration Date
07-May-2026
Judge
Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam A. Ankhad
Coram
Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam A. Ankhad
Bench Type
Division
Category
JUDICIARY LITIGATION ( 60 )
Sub-Category
Appointments in District Court ( 13 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
08-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Last updated 12-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SANJAY SAHADEO ANABHAWANE
Adv. TRUPTI NANDOSKAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. G. P. AND ORS
-
2.REGISTRAR GENERAL OF HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Adv. Shailendra S Kanetkar
-
3.STATE BANK OF INDIA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-May-2026
Hon'ble The Chief Justice,hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam A. AnkhadView PDF
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Sanjay Sahadeo Anabhawane seeking direction to reopen the SB Collect portal to accept his application fee for a preliminary examination. The court found the petition lacked bona fide, filed 2.5 months after the application deadline of 17th February 2026, and rejected the petitioner's excuse that he failed to notice his payment rejection, deeming it an incorrect and unbelievable statement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
08-May-2026
For Circulation
Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam A. Ankhad
-
06-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WP/6534/2026
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Sanjay Sahadeo Anabhawane seeking direction to reopen the SB Collect portal to accept his application fee for a preliminary examination. The court found the petition lacked bona fide, filed 2.5 months after the application deadline of 17th February 2026, and rejected the petitioner's excuse that he failed to notice his payment rejection, deeming it an incorrect and unbelievable statement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts