KAPIL WASUDEO CHORGHADE vs THE HONBLE MINISTER, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPT., MUMBAI AND ORS. — WP/4370/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section 226,227. Next hearing: 29th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM040170212026
Filing Number
WP/11600/2026
Filing Date
26-May-2026
Registration No
WP/4370/2026
Registration Date
26-May-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Raj D. Wakode
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Raj D. Wakode
Bench Type
Single
Judicial Branch
Civil
Last updated 30-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.KAPIL WASUDEO CHORGHADE
Adv. BHOJRAJ SITARAM DHANDALE
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE HONBLE MINISTER, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPT., MUMBAI AND ORS.
Adv. ,TEJAS SATISHRAO KENE 1123
-
2.THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, NAGPUR DIVISION, NAGPUR
-
3.THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PARISHAD, NAGPUR
-
4.THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PANCHAYAT SAMITI, SAONER
-
5.THE SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT AJNI (SHERDI), SAONER, NAGPUR
-
6.ASHOK PUNJABRAO THENGE
Case History
-
29-May-2026
Next hearingPending
-
13-Jun-2026
—
-
29-May-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Raj D. WakodeView PDF
Case Summary: WP 4370/2026 The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court heard Kapil Wasudeo Chorghade's writ petition against the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department and others on 29.05.2026. The court issued notice to respondents returnable on 09.06.2026, with some respondents waiving service. The petition was adjourned to 10.06.2026 for further consideration after the State and respondent No.6 sought time to file their replies. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
26-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WP/4370/2026
Case Summary: WP 4370/2026 The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court heard Kapil Wasudeo Chorghade's writ petition against the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department and others on 29.05.2026. The court issued notice to respondents returnable on 09.06.2026, with some respondents waiving service. The petition was adjourned to 10.06.2026 for further consideration after the State and respondent No.6 sought time to file their replies. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts