MARATHWADA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDALS SHRI MUKTANAND COLLEGE vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS — HCBM30525662025
Case under Constitution of India Section 14 AND 226. Next hearing: 03rd January 2026.
CNR: HCBM030525662025
Filing Number
WP/38858/2025
Filing Date
24-Dec-2025
Judge
Shri Rajesh A. Sasne (Registrar Judl.)
Coram
Shri Rajesh A. Sasne (Registrar Judl.)
Bench Type
Division
Judicial Branch
Civil
Last updated 17-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MARATHWADA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDALS SHRI MUKTANAND COLLEGE
Adv. CHOUDHARY DEELIP JANARDHANRAO
Respondent(s)
-
1.UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS
-
2.THE STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR PRADHAN MANTRI UCHCHTAR SHIKSHA ABHIYAN
-
3.THE PROJECT APPROVAL BOARD PAB PM USHA
-
4.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY
-
5.MUKTAINAGAR TALUKA EDUCATION SOCIETYS SMT GODAVARIBAI GANPATRAO KHADSE COLLEGE
Case History
-
03-Jan-2026
Next hearingPending
-
29-Jun-2026
Objections Not Removed (Third Time)
Shri Rajesh A. Sasne (Registrar Judl.)
-
15-Jun-2026
Shri Rajesh A. Sasne (Registrar Judl.)View PDF
The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) granted petitioners two weeks to remove office objections to multiple writ petitions filed in 2025-2026. The court warned that failure to comply will result in automatic refusal of registration without further notice, as petitioners had already been given extensions but failed to appear for three consecutive hearings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
15-Jun-2026
Objections Not Removed (Second Time)
Shri Rajesh A. Sasne (Registrar Judl.)
-
08-Jun-2026
Objections Not Removed (First Time)
Shri Pradeep B. Ghuge (Registrar Judl.)
-
04-May-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
24-Dec-2025
Case filed
The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) granted petitioners two weeks to remove office objections to multiple writ petitions filed in 2025-2026. The court warned that failure to comply will result in automatic refusal of registration without further notice, as petitioners had already been given extensions but failed to appear for three consecutive hearings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts