Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division Alibag Through Shri. Prashant Dhage vs Shri. Shayam Dattaram Kotwal — 139/2022
Case under Environment (protection) Act Section 15(1). Status: Order on Exh. Next hearing: 12th May 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHRG030013572022
Next Hearing
12th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1362/2022
Filing Date
07-11-2022
Registration No
139/2022
Registration Date
07-11-2022
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate , Raigarh
Judge
1-Chief Judicial Magistrate Raigad-ALIBAG
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division Alibag Through Shri. Prashant Dhage
Adv. A.P.P
Respondent(s)
Shri. Shayam Dattaram Kotwal
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Chief Judicial Magistrate Raigad-ALIBAG
Order on Exh
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 27-04-2026 | Order on Exh | |
| 06-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready | |
| 23-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready | |
| 10-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready | |
| 24-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary This is a Raigad High Court decision (Case No. 139/2022) addressing petitions under Indian Penal Code Section 267(1) regarding illegal forest land encroachment (Plot No. 285). The court dismissed three separate petitions filed by accused parties challenging proceedings related to unauthorized forest land occupation and environmental violations. All three petitions were rejected, with the court finding the charges under environmental protection laws and mining regulations to be substantiated and proceeding forward with the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary This is a Raigad High Court decision (Case No. 139/2022) addressing petitions under Indian Penal Code Section 267(1) regarding illegal forest land encroachment (Plot No. 285). The court dismissed three separate petitions filed by accused parties challenging proceedings related to unauthorized forest land occupation and environmental violations. All three petitions were rejected, with the court finding the charges under environmental protection laws and mining regulations to be substantiated and proceeding forward with the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts