DURGA VITHHOBA CHAUDHARI @ SAU. DURGA HARIDAS BORKAR vs S. T. CERTIFICATE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE, NAGPUR, THR. DY. DIRECTOR AND MEMBER SECY., AND ORS. — WP/4962/2025

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Next hearing: 08th May 2026.

CNR: HCBM040252912025

Next Hearing

08th May 2026

Filing Number

WP/18407/2025

Filing Date

08-08-2025

Registration No

WP/4962/2025

Registration Date

26-08-2025

Judge

REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL)

Coram

REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL)

Bench Type

Division

Judicial Branch

Civil

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226
Sc, St, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act (Maha.)
S.c. & S.t. Orders (Amendment) Act

Petitioner(s)

DURGA VITHHOBA CHAUDHARI @ SAU. DURGA HARIDAS BORKAR

Adv. KRISHNA S. AGRAWAL,CHINTAN SANDIP TAMHANE,CHINTAN SANDIP TAMHANE, ,CHINTAN SANDIP TAMHANE

Respondent(s)

S. T. CERTIFICATE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE, NAGPUR, THR. DY. DIRECTOR AND MEMBER SECY., AND ORS.

THE COLLECTOR, NAGPUR

TAHSILDAR, UMRED, NAGPUR

GRAM PANCHAYAT, AMBOLI, NAGPUR, (THR. SECRETARY)

Hearing History

Judge: REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL)

15-09-2025
08-05-2026

FOR ORDERS -

24-04-2026

FOR ORDERS -

01-04-2026

FOR ORDERS -

24-03-2026

FOR ORDERS -

Orders

08-05-2026
REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL)

Case Summary: WP 4962/2025 Outcome: The petition was dismissed against Respondent No. 4 in default on 08/05/2026 for the petitioner's failure to supply a copy for issuance of notice. Despite being granted sufficient time on multiple dates, the petitioner's counsel took no steps, leading to automatic dismissal under Chapter XVII Rule 7(iii) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, unless remedied within four weeks. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP 4962/2025 Outcome: The petition was dismissed against Respondent No. 4 in default on 08/05/2026 for the petitioner's failure to supply a copy for issuance of notice. Despite being granted sufficient time on multiple dates, the petitioner's counsel took no steps, leading to automatic dismissal under Chapter XVII Rule 7(iii) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, unless remedied within four weeks. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case