NAGORAO VENKATRAO CHIMANDHARE vs THE ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER DIVISION AURANGABAD AND ORS — WP/1986/2010

Case under Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act 1968. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 05th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 15-Mar-2010

CNR: HCBM030054682010

Filing Number

WP/4466/2010

Filing Date

16-Feb-2010

Registration No

WP/1986/2010

Registration Date

04-Mar-2010

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arun R. Pedneker

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arun R. Pedneker

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

05-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act 1968

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.NAGORAO VENKATRAO CHIMANDHARE

    Adv. GUNALE VISHWAMBER DIGAMBERRAO

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER DIVISION AURANGABAD AND ORS

    Adv. S J SALUNKE FORR/ 4 AND 5 CVTR. COPY NOT SERVED 1123

  2. 2.THE ADDL. COLLECTOR

  3. 3.THE GRAMSEVAK

  4. 4.SHIVAJI RAMRAO BHOSLE

  5. 5.SANTOSH VITHALRAO BHOSLE

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Arun R. PednekerView PDF

    The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) dismissed Writ Petition No.1986 of 2010 filed by Nagorao Venkatrao Chimandhare against the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad as infructuous. The petitioner's counsel conceded that due to passage of time, the relief sought had become infructuous, and the court accepted this submission and dismissed the petition accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Mar-2010

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  4. 15-Mar-2010

    Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. Borde

  5. 16-Feb-2010

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/1986/2010

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) dismissed Writ Petition No.1986 of 2010 filed by Nagorao Venkatrao Chimandhare against the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad as infructuous. The petitioner's counsel conceded that due to passage of time, the relief sought had become infructuous, and the court accepted this submission and dismissed the petition accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case