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.

Case disposed

Civil M.A. - Civil Misc. Application

CNR: MHAU080000412026

e-Filing Number

03-01-2026

Filing Number

23/2026

Filing Date

03-Jan-2026

Registration No

22/2026

Registration Date

05-Jan-2026

Court

Civil and Criminal Court, Sillod

Judge

6-Iiird Jt Cjjd And JMFC Sillod

Decision Date

17-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE

Last updated 29-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bombay Regulation Act,1827 Section 2

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sakharabai Siratam Gavali

    Adv. Dandge B.K.

  2. 2.Rukhamanbai Pandurang Navagire

    Adv. Dandge B.K.

  3. 3.Gajrabai Ramdas Jagtap

    Adv. Dandge B.K.

  4. 4.Gayabai Khandu Bhujang

    Adv. Dandge B.K.

  5. 5.Prakash Totaraam Dandage

    Adv. Dandge B.K.

  6. 6.Jijabai Eknath Dandage

    Adv. Dandge B.K.

  7. 7.Samadhan Eknath Dandage

    Adv. Dandge B.K.

  8. 8.Bhandas Eknath Dandage

    Adv. Dandge B.K.

  9. 9.Bhagvat Eknath Dandage

    Adv. Dandge B.K.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    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.

  3. 17-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Iiird Jt Cjjd And JMFC Sillod

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Iiird Jt Cjjd And JMFC Sillod

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Iiird Jt Cjjd And JMFC Sillod

  6. 05-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Iiird Jt Cjjd And JMFC Sillod

  7. 27-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Iiird Jt Cjjd And JMFC Sillod

  8. 25-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Iiird Jt Cjjd And JMFC Sillod

  9. 24-Feb-2026

    Report

    Iiird Jt Cjjd And JMFC Sillod

  10. 20-Feb-2026

    Public Notice/Proclamation

    Iiird Jt Cjjd And JMFC Sillod

  11. 17-Feb-2026

    Public Notice/Proclamation

    Iiird Jt Cjjd And JMFC Sillod

  12. 09-Feb-2026

    Public Notice/Proclamation

    Iiird Jt Cjjd And JMFC Sillod

  13. 06-Jan-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  14. 06-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  15. 03-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 22/2026

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case