VINOD LALWANI (PARTNER M/S - S.S. RICE MILL) vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — WPC/2181/2026

Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: CGHC010171092026

Filing Number

WPC/9890/2026

Filing Date

25-Apr-2026

Registration No

WPC/2181/2026

Registration Date

30-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

ORDINARY CIVIL MATTERS ( 17 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS AND MIXED BAG ONES.. ( 1750 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VINOD LALWANI (PARTNER M/S - S.S. RICE MILL)

    Adv. ROSHAN SINGH LAMBA,ADITYA SRIVASTAV,ADITYA SRIVASTAV, ,Sudhanshu Kumar Singh,Sudhanshu Kumar Singh,B.P.SINGH,ADITYA SRIVASTAV

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.

  2. 2.Managing Director- Chhattisgarh State Market Federation Maryadit

    Adv. Siddharth Pandey,MAHESH PANDEY

  3. 3.District Marketing Officer

  4. 4.The Collector (Food Department)

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 04-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore PrasadView PDF

    Case Summary: In WPC No. 2181/2026, the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur heard Vinod Lalwani's petition against the State of Chhattisgarh and related respondents on 04/05/2026. The court issued notice to the respondents; the State's Deputy AG accepted notice on behalf of respondents 1 & 4, while notice was directed to be issued to respondents 2 & 3 upon payment of prescribed fees. The case was adjourned pending response. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-May-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

  4. 25-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPC/2181/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: In WPC No. 2181/2026, the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur heard Vinod Lalwani's petition against the State of Chhattisgarh and related respondents on 04/05/2026. The court issued notice to the respondents; the State's Deputy AG accepted notice on behalf of respondents 1 & 4, while notice was directed to be issued to respondents 2 & 3 upon payment of prescribed fees. The case was adjourned pending response. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case