SMT. SUNITA SANJAY PATIL AND ANR. vs THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT. AND ORS. Advocate - PADMANABH D PISE, R.NO. 6,R. NO. 1,R.NO. 6P,R.NO. 6O,R.NO.6 (K),R.NO. 9,GP WRIT CELL,SARIPUTTA SARNATH,SARIPUTTA SARNATH,SARIPUTTA SARNATH,AJIT RAM PITALE — WP/14719/2018

Case under Mah. Muncipalties Act. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 04th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 12-Sep-2018

CNR: HCBM070116442018

Filing Number

WP/7456/2018

Filing Date

09-Mar-2018

Registration No

WP/14719/2018

Registration Date

26-Dec-2018

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Laxman Pansare , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Laxman Pansare , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale

Bench Type

Division

Category

ORDINARY CIVIL ( 30 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

04-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 16-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Mah. Muncipalties Act

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SMT. SUNITA SANJAY PATIL AND ANR.

    Adv. Umesh R Mankapure

  2. 2.SHIVARAJ SHRISHAILYA BOLAJ

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT. AND ORS. Advocate - PADMANABH D PISE, R.NO. 6,R. NO. 1,R.NO. 6P,R.NO. 6O,R.NO.6 (K),R.NO. 9,GP WRIT CELL,SARIPUTTA SARNATH,SARIPUTTA SARNATH,SARIPUTTA SARNATH,AJIT RAM PITALE

  2. 2.SANGLI, MIRAJ AND KUPWAD CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

  3. 3.THE COMMISSIONER, SANGLI, MIRAJ AND KUPWAD CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

  4. 4.THE MAYOR,SANGLI, MIRAJ AND KUPWAD CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

  5. 5.THE DEPUTY MAYOR, SANGLI, MIRAJ AND KUPWAD CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

  6. 6.STANDING COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN, BASAVESHVAR SATPUTE, SANGLI,MIRAJ AND KUPWAD CITY CUN.CORPORATION

  7. 7.6(A) ROHINI SATYAJIT PATIL

  8. 8.6(B) KISHOR GANPATI LATANE

  9. 9.6(C) BABITA SANJAY MENDHE

  10. 10.6(D) PRASHANT PAYGONDA PATIL

  11. 11.6(E) MRUNAL CHETAN PATIL

  12. 12.6(F) MAHENDRA RAMAKANT SAVANT

  13. 13.6(G) JUBER IBRAHIM CHAUDHARY

  14. 14.6(H) DHONDUBAI RAJARAM KALGUTAGI

  15. 15.6(I) BABY SHAMSHUDDIN MALGAVE

  16. 16.6(J) NIRMALA RAJENDRA JAGDALE

  17. 17.6(K) SANTOSH SHIVADAS PATIL

  18. 18.6(J) ALAKA HANMANT PAWAR

  19. 19.6(M) PRADIP JAGONDA PATIL

  20. 20.6(N) RAJU LAKSHMAN GAVALI

  21. 21.6(O) MANAGU KERU SARGAR

  22. 22.6(P) DILIP TUKARAM PATIL

  23. 23.6(Q)ATAHR IDRIS NAIKWADI

  24. 24.6(R) PRIYANKA SURESH BANDGAR

  25. 25.6 (S)PRARTHANA PRASAD MADBHAVIKAR

  26. 26.6(T) SANGITA ABHIJEET HARAGE

  27. 27.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(SANGLI, MIRAJ AND KUPWAD CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,)WATER DEPTT.

  28. 28.S.V.JADHAV

  29. 29.MAHARASHTRA JEEVAN PRADHIKARAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Laxman Pansare,hon'ble Shri Justice Ranjitsinha Raja BhonsaleView PDF

    The High Court of Bombay (Kolhapur Circuit Bench) disposed of the writ petition as infructuous after the petitioners' counsel submitted that the petition had become infructuous. No substantive order on merits was issued; the case was closed based on the statement accepted by the court regarding the mootness of the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Oct-2020

    Due For Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla , Hon'ble Shri Justice S.J. Kathawalla

  4. 21-Aug-2019

    Hon'ble Shri Justice G.S. Patel,hon'ble Shri Justice S.C. DharmadhikariView PDF

  5. 21-Aug-2019

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice G.S. Patel , Hon'ble Shri Justice S.C. Dharmadhikari

  6. 26-Oct-2018

    Registrar (Judicial - Iwp)View PDF

  7. 26-Oct-2018

    For Orders (Office Objections)

    Registrar (Judicial - Iwp)

  8. 04-Oct-2018

    Registrar (Judicial - Iwp)View PDF

  9. 04-Oct-2018

    For Orders (Office Objections)

    Registrar (Judicial - Iwp)

  10. 12-Sep-2018

    Registrar (Judicial - Iwp)View PDF

  11. 12-Sep-2018

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  12. 09-Mar-2018

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/14719/2018

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Bombay (Kolhapur Circuit Bench) disposed of the writ petition as infructuous after the petitioners' counsel submitted that the petition had become infructuous. No substantive order on merits was issued; the case was closed based on the statement accepted by the court regarding the mootness of the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case