Dismissed¶56

Mangesh Narayanrao Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Apr 2026WP/3718/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of writ petitions; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; impugned Notification; Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal rejection of original application by similarly situated candidates; petition against MAT order pending before coordinate Bench; permission to withdraw; writ petitions dismissed as withdrawn; no adjudication on merits; respondent MPSC referred to at hearing; Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench; coram Kankanwadi and Venegavkar, JJ.; order dated 09.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the petitions granted; all writ petitions dismissed as withdrawn, with an express clarification that they will not be adjudicated on merits. ¶56

Mangesh Narayanrao Waghmare vs State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:15340-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

970 WRIT PETITION NO. 3591 OF 2026

¶4

MANIKUMARI APPARAO BATTULA

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

Mr. V.B. Dhage, Advocate for petitioner

¶8

Mr. V.M. Kagne, AGP for State

¶9

971 WRIT PETITION NO. 3634 OF 2026

¶10

ABHILASHA DIGAMBAR PACHPOR AND OTHERS

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶13

Mr. M.M. Patil (Beedkar), Advocate for petitioners

¶14

Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, AGP for State

¶15

972 WRIT PETITION NO. 3640 OF 2026

¶16

SANTOSH SHESHRAO KASBE

¶17

VERSUS

¶18

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶19

Mr. S.R. Kedar, Advocate for petitioner

¶20

¶21

970_WP_3591_2026+5

¶22

Mr. A.M. Phule, AGP for State

¶23

973 WRIT PETITION NO. 3647 OF 2026

¶24

SUBHASH BHAGWAN GAIKWAD AND ANR

¶25

VERSUS

¶26

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ORS

¶27

Mr. S.R. Kedar, Advocate for petitioners

¶28

Mr. R.S. Wani, AGP for State

¶29

Mr. M.B. Kolpe, Advocate for respondent No.3

¶30

974 WRIT PETITION NO. 3655 OF 2026

¶31

SACHIN BALASAHEB POUL ALIES PAUL

¶32

VERSUS

¶33

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. THE SECRETARY GENERAL

¶34

ADMINSTRATION DEPT. AN ORS

¶35

Mr. D.M. Shinde, Advocate for petitioner

¶36

Mr. S.B. Narwade, AGP for State

¶37

Mr. M.B. Kolpe, Advocate for respondent No.3

¶38

WRIT PETITION NO.3718 OF 2026

¶39

¶40

970_WP_3591_2026+5

¶41

MANGESH NARAYANRAO WAGHMARE

¶42

VERSUS

¶43

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶44

Mr. P.S. Anerao, Advocate h/f Mr. Ajinkya Reddy, Advocate for petitioner

¶45

Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for State

¶46

Mr. M.B. Kolpe, Advocate for respondent No.3

¶47

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

¶48

DATE : 09^th APRIL, 2026

¶49

ORDER :

¶50

. Heard learned Advocates for respective petitioners. These

¶51

petitions had come up before us yesterday and after hearing the petitioners for some time we thought it fit that the opportunity should be given to the State as well as to the respondent – MPSC to represent themselves. Accordingly, the matters were placed today. Learned AGPs appearing for State in respective matters at the outset informed that similarly situated candidates for same relief had approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by way of raising challenge to the impugned Notification itself and after hearing in detail the original application filed by the said candidates has been rejected. They further submit that by way of raising challenge to the

¶52

¶53

970_WP_3591_2026+5

¶54

order passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal a petition has already been filed in this Court and was mentioned before the coordinate Bench, who has placed the hearing of the said petition tomorrow.

¶55

2 Learned Advocates appearing for the respective petitioners in all the petitions therefore seek liberty to withdraw the petitions.

¶56

3 As the matter has already been considered in detail by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and the order has already been passed, we do not proceed to adjudicate the issue of the present petitioners, who had directly approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The permission to withdraw the petitions is therefore granted. All the writ petitions stand dismissed as withdrawn.

¶57

4 We make it clear that the petitions will not be adjudicated on

¶58

merits.

¶59

( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )

¶60

agd

Mangesh Narayanrao Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangesh Narayanrao Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avinash Vitthal Kamble vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Nanasaheb Ajabrao Nikam vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Mohsin Kayyum Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Mohammad Junaid Shaikh Usman Pinjari vs Kalpana Damadu Chavan

Subhash Bhagwan Gaikwad and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Trimabak Dhondiba Nighote vs AsheemKumar S K Gupta