VIVEK KUMAR PANDEY vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — WPPIL/24/2026
Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 07th May 2026.
CNR: CGHC010172882026
Filing Number
WPPIL/9981/2026
Filing Date
27-Apr-2026
Registration No
WPPIL/24/2026
Registration Date
01-May-2026
Judge
Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Coram
Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
LETTER PETITION & PIL MATTERS ( 8 )
Sub-Category
MATTERS RELATING TO UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTIONS INCLUDING ENCROACHMENTS. ( 809 )
Judicial Branch
Writ Section
Decision Date
07-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 05-Jun-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.VIVEK KUMAR PANDEY
Adv. SHRESTHA GUPTA,SAMEEKSHA GUPTA,SAMEEKSHA GUPTA, ,Sumit Jhawar,SANGEETA MISHRA,AMAN KUMAR KESHARWANI,RAJESH KUMAR TIWARI,SAMEEKSHA GUPTA
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.
-
2.Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (P C C F) Forest Department,
-
3.Divisional Forest Officer,
-
4.Collector,
-
5.Union of India
Adv. DSGI
-
6.M/s Dhanwada Power and Infrastructure Private Limited,
-
7.M/s Dhanwada Power and Infrastructure Private Limited,
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
07-May-2026
Hon'ble The Chief Justice,Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar AgrawalView PDF
The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed WPPIL No. 24/2026 filed by Vivek Kumar Pandey against the State and forest authorities regarding a power infrastructure project. The court rejected the petitioner's application for exemption from security deposit payment under Rule 81 of the C.G. High Court Rules, 2007, and dismissed the petition with liberty to refile after depositing the required security deposit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
04-May-2026
For Orders [On Office Notes]
Additional Registrar(j)
-
27-Apr-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WPPIL/24/2026
The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed WPPIL No. 24/2026 filed by Vivek Kumar Pandey against the State and forest authorities regarding a power infrastructure project. The court rejected the petitioner's application for exemption from security deposit payment under Rule 81 of the C.G. High Court Rules, 2007, and dismissed the petition with liberty to refile after depositing the required security deposit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts