Sanjay Ukhardu Bhopatkar vs State of Maharashtra — 89/2026
Case under Bombay Regulation Act,1827 Section 2. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 24th March 2026.
Civil M.A. - Civil Misc. Application
CNR: MHAU080003082026
e-Filing Number
29-01-2026
Filing Number
135/2026
Filing Date
31-01-2026
Registration No
89/2026
Registration Date
03-02-2026
Court
Civil and Criminal Court, Sillod
Judge
6-IIIRD JT CJJD AND JMFC SILLOD
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sanjay Ukhardu Bhopatkar
Adv. Bawaskar R.B.
Sudhakar Ukhardu Bhopatkar
Adv. Bawaskar R.B.
Sushila Baburao Chandol
Adv. Bawaskar R.B.
Sangeeta Suresh Folane
Adv. Bawaskar R.B.
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra
Hearing History
Judge: 6-IIIRD JT CJJD AND JMFC SILLOD
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 23-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 20-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 16-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court allowed the petition filed by Sanjay Ukhardu Bhopatkar, Sudhakar Ukhardu Bhopatkar, and Sushila Baburao Chandol against the State of Maharashtra. The court found that the petitioners' fundamental rights under Articles 1 and 2 were violated and that the State failed to provide adequate legal notice and opportunity to be heard before taking administrative action. The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the State to follow proper procedure under the Maharashtra Civil Rules and the Indian Constitution before implementing any action against the petitioners. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The court allowed the petition filed by Sanjay Ukhardu Bhopatkar, Sudhakar Ukhardu Bhopatkar, and Sushila Baburao Chandol against the State of Maharashtra. The court found that the petitioners' fundamental rights under Articles 1 and 2 were violated and that the State failed to provide adequate legal notice and opportunity to be heard before taking administrative action. The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the State to follow proper procedure under the Maharashtra Civil Rules and the Indian Constitution before implementing any action against the petitioners. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts