RAJENDRA GANGADHAR MENKUDALE vs THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, YAVATMAL, THR. CHIEF OFFICER, YAVATMAL AND ANOTHER — WP/3037/2026

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

Case disposed Next hearing 28-Apr-2026

CNR: HCBM040120512026

Filing Number

WP/8228/2026

Filing Date

06-Apr-2026

Registration No

WP/3037/2026

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.RAJENDRA GANGADHAR MENKUDALE

    Adv. RUGVED BHASKARRAO DHORE

Respondent(s)

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

  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 Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court directed the Municipal Council, Yavatmal to decide the petitioner's pending representation (dated 27.3.2026) within three weeks according to law, and suspended the order declaring him surplus until that decision is made. The court found merit in the petitioner's contention that no hearing was provided before declaring him surplus, and directed him to appear before the respondent on 20th April, 2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 06-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/3037/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court directed the Municipal Council, Yavatmal to decide the petitioner's pending representation (dated 27.3.2026) within three weeks according to law, and suspended the order declaring him surplus until that decision is made. The court found merit in the petitioner's contention that no hearing was provided before declaring him surplus, and directed him to appear before the respondent on 20th April, 2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case