Sakharabai Siratam Gavali vs State of Maharashtra — 22/2026

Case under Bombay Regulation Act,1827 Section 2. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 17th March 2026.

Civil M.A. - Civil Misc. Application

CNR: MHAU080000412026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

03-01-2026

Filing Number

23/2026

Filing Date

03-01-2026

Registration No

22/2026

Registration Date

05-01-2026

Court

Civil and Criminal Court, Sillod

Judge

6-IIIRD JT CJJD AND JMFC SILLOD

Decision Date

17th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE

Acts & Sections

Bombay Regulation Act,1827 Section 2

Petitioner(s)

Sakharabai Siratam Gavali

Adv. Dandge B.K.

Rukhamanbai Pandurang Navagire

Adv. Dandge B.K.

Gajrabai Ramdas Jagtap

Adv. Dandge B.K.

Gayabai Khandu Bhujang

Adv. Dandge B.K.

Prakash Totaraam Dandage

Adv. Dandge B.K.

Jijabai Eknath Dandage

Adv. Dandge B.K.

Samadhan Eknath Dandage

Adv. Dandge B.K.

Bhandas Eknath Dandage

Adv. Dandge B.K.

Bhagvat Eknath Dandage

Adv. Dandge B.K.

Respondent(s)

State of Maharashtra

Hearing History

Judge: 6-IIIRD JT CJJD AND JMFC SILLOD

17-03-2026

Disposed

12-03-2026

Arguments

09-03-2026

Arguments

05-03-2026

Arguments

27-02-2026

Arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

17-03-2026
Order on Exhibit

Case Summary: 22/2026 The court partially allowed the petitioners' writ petition challenging the State of Maharashtra's dismissal orders. The court found that while the petitioners were validly appointed, the dismissal proceedings violated procedural safeguards and fair hearing requirements under the Mumbai Agriculture Act, 1827 and Indian Constitution Article 14. The court set aside the dismissal orders and directed reinstatement with appropriate relief, while upholding the State's regulatory authority over agricultural personnel. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 22/2026 The court partially allowed the petitioners' writ petition challenging the State of Maharashtra's dismissal orders. The court found that while the petitioners were validly appointed, the dismissal proceedings violated procedural safeguards and fair hearing requirements under the Mumbai Agriculture Act, 1827 and Indian Constitution Article 14. The court set aside the dismissal orders and directed reinstatement with appropriate relief, while upholding the State's regulatory authority over agricultural personnel. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil and Criminal Court, Sillod All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case