VILAS DASHRATH KALE vs THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, YAVATMAL THR. CHIEF OFFICER, YAVATMAL AND ANR. — WP/3036/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 15th April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 28-Apr-2026

CNR: HCBM040120492026

Filing Number

WP/8226/2026

Filing Date

06-Apr-2026

Registration No

WP/3036/2026

Registration Date

10-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Smt. Justice M. S. Jawalkar , Hon'ble Shri Justice Nandesh Shankarrao Deshpande

Coram

Hon'ble Smt. Justice M. S. Jawalkar , Hon'ble Shri Justice Nandesh Shankarrao Deshpande

Bench Type

Division

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

15-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 26-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226
Bombay Municipal Corporation Act
Mah. Muncipalties Act
Service Matter

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VILAS DASHRATH KALE

    Adv. RUGVED BHASKARRAO DHORE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, YAVATMAL THR. CHIEF OFFICER, YAVATMAL AND ANR.

  2. 2.DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, AMRAVATI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 28-Apr-2026

    —

  3. 15-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Smt. Justice M. S. Jawalkar,hon'ble Shri Justice Nandesh Shankarrao DeshpandeView PDF

    The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) granted partial relief to Dr. Vilas Dashrath Kale, a teacher declared surplus by the Yavatmal Municipal Council, by staying the implementation of the surplus declaration order pending decision of his representation. The court directed the respondent to decide his pending representation within three weeks, finding merit in his contention that he was not given a hearing before the surplus declaration order was issued. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 06-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/3036/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) granted partial relief to Dr. Vilas Dashrath Kale, a teacher declared surplus by the Yavatmal Municipal Council, by staying the implementation of the surplus declaration order pending decision of his representation. The court directed the respondent to decide his pending representation within three weeks, finding merit in his contention that he was not given a hearing before the surplus declaration order was issued. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case