SHIVAJI RAGHUNATH GAIKWAD vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — WP/9119/2016

Case under Constitution of India. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.

Next hearing 09-Jun-2026

CNR: HCBM030328532016

Filing Number

WP/26322/2016

Filing Date

23-Aug-2016

Registration No

WP/9119/2016

Registration Date

24-Aug-2016

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Kishore C. Sant , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Kishore C. Sant , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar

Bench Type

Division

Judicial Branch

Civil

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHIVAJI RAGHUNATH GAIKWAD

    Adv. PAHILWAN GAUTAM J

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

    Adv. ,Bajaj Anil S.,DESHMUKH SACHIN S. FOR R/2,DESHMUKH VAIBHAV P FOR R. NO. 2 1123

Case History

  1. 09-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 09-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Kishore C. Sant,hon'ble Shri Justice Ajit B. KadethankarView PDF

    Summary: The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court disposed of the writ petition as infructuous on June 9, 2026. Petitioner Shivaji Raghunath Gaikwad challenged CIDCO's allotment of a shoplet adjoining his existing plot, but CIDCO informed the court the shoplet had already been allotted to another person. The court found no purpose in continuing the petition, particularly since the person receiving the allotment was not made a party, and dismissed it. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Apr-2020

    Notification

    According To Sitting List

  4. 29-Aug-2016

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. Borde,hon'ble Shri Justice K. K. SonawaneView PDF

  5. 29-Aug-2016

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 23-Aug-2016

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/9119/2016

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court disposed of the writ petition as infructuous on June 9, 2026. Petitioner Shivaji Raghunath Gaikwad challenged CIDCO's allotment of a shoplet adjoining his existing plot, but CIDCO informed the court the shoplet had already been allotted to another person. The court found no purpose in continuing the petition, particularly since the person receiving the allotment was not made a party, and dismissed it. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case