Orissa High Court
Prahallad Biswal vs Ajay Behera & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 9 January, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 17-Jan-2026 16:26:20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P. (C) NO.11988 of 2025
(In the matter of petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Prahallad Biswal .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
Ajay Behera & Ors. .... Opposite Party(s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija, Sr. Adv.
along with associates
Mr. Arnav Behera, Adv.
-versus-
For Opp. Party(s) : Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, AGA
Mr. Sankar Prasad Pani, Adv.
Mr. Susanta Kumar Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Shanti Prakash Mohanty, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATES OF HEARING:- 16.12.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:- 09.01.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, assails the order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata in Original Application No. 122/2023/EZ, whereby environmental compensation of Rs. 96,28,50,175/- has been imposed on Page 1 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Jan-2026 16:26:20 the petitioner on the allegation of excess mining beyond the Consent to Establish (CTE).
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. Succinctly put, the facts of the case are as follows:
(i) Desirous of granting a lease in respect of Damanbhuin Laterite Stone Quarry, District Khordha, the Tahasildar, Tangi issued a notice for auction, whereupon the petitioner was selected as the preferred bidder.
On 12.08.2021, the petitioner was directed to deposit the royalty and execute an agreement.
(ii) The Tahasildar, Tangi obtained environmental clearance for mining of laterite stone at the Damanbhuin Laterite Stone Quarry, District Khordha on 06.07.2021 from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India. The environmental clearance was subsequently transferred in favour of the petitioner on 15.03.2022.
(iii) Thereafter, the Tahasildar, Tangi and the petitioner executed a mining lease deed dated 25.04.2022 in respect of Damanbhuin Mouza over Plot No. 2161(P) under Khata No. 708, measuring 4.139 hectares or 10.23 acres, Kissam: Gochar, in Tangi Tahasil of District Khordha, commonly known as the Damanbhuin Laterite Stone Quarry.
(iv) In the meantime, on 13.05.2022, the Tahasildar, Tangi granted permission to M/s Agarwala for lifting of ordinary soil or morrum from Plot No. 2161 for the purpose of road construction.
(v) Thereafter, the petitioner was granted the Consent to Establish (CTE) on 29.06.2022 by the Odisha State Pollution Control Board under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section Page 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Jan-2026 16:26:20 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 for production of laterite stone of 1500 cubic metres per annum.
(vi) The Consent to Operate was granted to the petitioner on 15.07.2022 and was subsequently renewed on 19.06.2023.
(vii) The petitioner commenced mining operations at the Damanbhuin Stone Quarry in July, 2022. Around this period, it was found that one Yudhistir Udaysingh and one Biswanath Behera, residents of village/P.S. Jankia, were engaged in illegal mining over the leasehold area of the petitioner as well as adjoining areas. The said persons extracted laterite ore without the permission or consent of the petitioner and threatened the petitioner and his employees. Accordingly, the agent of the petitioner submitted a representation dated 23.06.2022 to the Tahasildar, Tangi bringing the illegal mining and theft of minor minerals to his notice. The Tahasildar, Tangi directed the Revenue Inspector, Achyutpur to conduct an enquiry and submit a report.
(viii) Upon enquiry, the Revenue Inspector, Achyutpur submitted a report stating that the allegations made by the petitioner were correct. By letter bearing No. 236 dated 23.06.2022, it was reported that the Geologist had concluded that the said persons had illegally mined 16,324 cubic metres of laterite ore.
(ix) On the basis of the said report, the Tahasildar, Tangi lodged a complaint against Yudhistir Udaysingh and Biswanath Behera at Jankia Police Station, Khordha on 24.06.2022, which was registered as FIR No. 0237 dated 25.06.2022 under Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals Page 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Jan-2026 16:26:20 (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 read with Sections 34 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
(x) So far as the petitioner is concerned, measurement of laterite mined at the quarry is undertaken by the Geologist in the office of the Tahasildar, Tangi. Accordingly, royalty and minor penalty for excess mining were imposed upon the petitioner by the Tahasildar, Tangi amounting to Rs. 14,03,680/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Three Thousand Six Hundred Eighty only) towards royalty and Rs. 7,03,560/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Three Thousand Five Hundred Sixty only) towards minor penalty.
(xi) On 24.08.2023, the present Opposite Party No. 1, who is the paternal nephew of the accused Biswanath Behera, filed OA No. 122/2023/EZ before the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata against the Petitioner as well as the Tahasildar, Tangi. The Opposite Party No. 1 alleged that the Petitioner was engaged in illegal mining over plot No. 2162 in addition to the leasehold Plot No. 2162(P).
(xii) Thereafter, on 22.09.2023, the learned Tribunal directed all parties to file their respective counter affidavits and further directed constitution of a Committee to conduct site inspection and submit a report on the allegations made in the Original Application.
(xiii) On 31.10.2023, the Collector and District Magistrate, Khordha filed an affidavit stating that the Committee had conducted a spot inspection on 11.10.2023 and that survey work was being carried out by a scientific team in coordination with the Odisha Space Application Centre (ORSAC), Bhubaneswar. Further time was sought for submission of a detailed report.
Page 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Jan-2026 16:26:20
(xiv) Thereafter, on 07.12.2023, the Collector and District Magistrate, Khordha filed another affidavit seeking additional time of two months for submission of the detailed report.
(xv) On 25.01.2024, the Collector and District Magistrate, Khordha filed another affidavit enclosing a preliminary Joint Committee Report. The affidavit further disclosed that ORSAC had empanelled a firm which, on the basis of DGPS, drone survey and bathymetric survey, assessed excavation of 91,775.217 cubic metres of laterite and 68,754.88 cubic metres of morrum from the quarry.
(xvi) Thereafter, on 29.02.2024, the petitioner filed a counter affidavit in OA No. 122/2023/EZ placing on record details relating to the illegal mining activities of Yudhistir Udaysingh and Biswanath Behera. (xvii) On 23.04.2024, the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority filed an affidavit submitting a Joint Inspection Report along with a report relating to environmental compensation and penalty calculation. The petitioner filed objections thereto on 14.05.2024. (xviii) In the meantime, on 17.05.2024, the Divisional Forest Officer, Khordha filed an affidavit annexing the Joint Enquiry Committee Report dated 11.10.2023.
(xix) The learned Tribunal accepted the report submitted by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority and thereafter passed the final order dated 11.02.2025 imposing a penalty of Rs. 96,28,50,175/- (Rupees Ninety-six Crores Twenty-Eight Lakhs Fifty Thousand One Hundred and Seventy-five only) upon the petitioner towards Page 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Jan-2026 16:26:20 environmental compensation for excess mining beyond the Consent to Establish.
(xx) Aggrieved by the said order dated 11.02.2025 passed in Original Application No. 122/2023/EZ, the petitioner has been constrained to file the present writ petition.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions.
(i) The petitioner submitted that he had established that certain persons were obstructing the operation of the mine and were carrying out illegal mining within the leasehold area and were therefore responsible for the alleged excess production, which was supported by the petitioner's representation dated 23.06.2022 to the Tahasildar, the enquiry report dated 23.06.2022 of the Revenue Inspector confirming the said allegations, and the complaint dated 24.06.2022 lodged by the Tahasildar at Jankia Police Station resulting in registration of FIR No. 0237 dated 25.06.2022 for illegal excavation of 16,324 cubic metres of laterite stone, apart from several other FIRs registered against the same accused persons.
(ii) The petitioner contended that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal in paragraph 26 of the impugned order, to the effect that the lessee bore sole responsibility to protect the quarry and could have opted out of the lease in case of obstruction, is wholly erroneous and has been arrived at without consideration of the relevant materials on record.
Page 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Jan-2026 16:26:20
(iii) The petitioner contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered that the measurements of the Tahasildar, Tangi indicated that large-scale illegal mining in the area far exceeded the production attributable to the petitioner-lessee, and that third-party entities such as M/s Agarwala had also been granted permission to lift morrum in the area, and, therefore, while applying the Polluter Pays Principle, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered that the petitioner was not the polluter in the present case.
(iv) The petitioner contended that the learned Tribunal ought not to have fastened absolute liability upon the petitioner on account of the failure of the State authorities to maintain the rule of law and to curb illegal mining in the area.
(v) The petitioner contended that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the applicant in the Original Application, namely the present Opposite Party No. 1, is the paternal nephew of Biswanath Behera, who is an accused named in FIR No. 0237 dated 25.06.2022, and that, therefore, the Original Application was liable to be dismissed in limine on the ground of suppression of material facts.
(vi) The petitioner contended that it is trite law that no relief ought to be granted to a litigant who has approached the Court with unclean hands.
(vii) The petitioner contended that the assessment of excess production in the joint report of the Mining Officer, Khordha and the Scientist, SEIAA was based on a report of a private entity, namely M/s My World Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., and that while the final report of the said private entity was furnished to the petitioner, the underlying raw data on the Page 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Jan-2026 16:26:20 basis of which the report was prepared was not supplied, thereby denying the petitioner an effective opportunity to examine and rebut the same, as a result of which the impugned order suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice.
(viii) The petitioner submitted that up to 26.05.2023, the limited excess production attributed to the petitioner was regularly measured by the Tahasildar and demand notices were raised and duly paid, and that when the Tahasildar had the jurisdiction and the means to undertake such measurements, the authorities ought not to have engaged a private entity without established credentials, namely M/s My World Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., for assessment of excess production.
(ix) The petitioner contended that no seizure or confiscation has ever been effected by the authorities on account of any alleged illegal mining by the petitioner, and that the allegation of illegal mining is wholly unsupported by evidence, the assessment of excess mining being based merely on survey and extrapolation, which is arbitrary and unreasonable.
(x) The petitioner contended that while the total excess production measured by the Geologist in the office of the Tahasildar over a period of ten months from 15.07.2022 to 26.05.2023 was only 2,140 cubic metres, the Joint Report recorded excess production of 79,039.22 cubic metres for the entire period from 15.07.2022 to 27.10.2023, being the date of survey by M/s My World Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., which would imply alleged excess production of 76,899.22 cubic metres in a span of barely three Page 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Jan-2026 16:26:20 months, a conclusion that is highly improbable and unbelievable and casts serious doubt on the analysis undertaken by the said private entity.
(xi) The petitioner contended that the application of the Net Present Value (NPV) formula for calculation of environmental compensation for alleged illegal mining of laterite stone reflects non-application of mind, inasmuch as the concept of NPV was evolved in the context of illegal tree felling to capture the discounted value of ecosystem goods and services flowing from forests over time, and the said concept, which relates to renewable ecological services, is wholly inapplicable to a mineral resource such as laterite ore.
(xii) The petitioner contended that the penalty of approximately Rs. 96 crores imposed upon the petitioner is wholly disproportionate, particularly when the total royalty paid on the minerals extracted by the petitioner amounts to only Rs. 12,60,597/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Sixty Thousand Five Hundred Ninety-Seven only).
III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions:
(i) The present writ petition is not maintainable in law, as the impugned order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata is appealable under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, and the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court bypassing the statutory remedy. While it is settled that the availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, the present case does not fall within any of the Page 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Jan-2026 16:26:20 recognised exceptions such as violation of principles of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or challenge to the vires of any statute. The petitioner also had the remedy of seeking review under Rule 22 of the NGT (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011, which was not availed.
(ii) The petitioner was granted a mining lease for Laterite Stone Quarry over an area of Ac. 10.023 at village Damanbhuin under Tangi Tahasil for the period from 25.04.2022 to 24.04.2027. Environmental Clearance was granted on 06.07.2021 and subsequently transferred in favour of the petitioner on 15.03.2022. Consent to Establish was granted on 29.06.2022 and Consent to Operate on 15.07.2022. As per the permissions granted, the petitioner was allowed to extract 1500 cubic metres per annum, i.e., 7500 cubic metres for the entire lease period.
(iii) On allegations of excess mining, a Joint Committee consisting of representatives of the SPCB, SEIAA, District Administration, Forest Department, and Directorate of Mines and Geology was constituted pursuant to the order dated 22.09.2023 of the Tribunal. The Committee undertook scientific assessment with the assistance of ORSAC, which provided extraction data up to April 2022. As data for November 2023 could not be generated due to erroneous satellite imagery, assessment for the said period was conducted through DGPS, drone, and bathymetric survey by M/s My World Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. On the basis of scientific assessment, excess extraction of 79,039.22 cubic metres of laterite stone and 64,254 cubic metres of morrum was determined.
Page 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Jan-2026 16:26:20
(iv) The contention of the petitioner that the figures for April 2022 were added to the figures of November 2023 is incorrect. The excess extraction was determined by deducting the April 2022 baseline from the November 2023 assessment. The petitioner has deposited royalty and penalty for excess extraction during January, February, and May 2023, which clearly establishes excess mining beyond the permissible limits. The assertion that the Geologist in the office of the Tahasildar found excess extraction of only 2140 cubic metres is incorrect and contrary to the scientific assessment placed on record.
(v) The issue of alleged illegal mining by third parties has been duly considered by the Tribunal in paragraph 26 of the impugned order. The National Green Tribunal, being a specialised statutory body constituted under the NGT Act, 2010, has passed the order dated 11.02.2025 after due consideration of material on record. The impugned order is legally sound, reasoned, and does not warrant interference by this Court. IV. COURT'S ANALYSIS AND REASONING:
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and materials placed on record.
6. At the outset, learned counsel for the opposite parties raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the impugned order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata is appealable under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
7. It is, however, well settled that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not, by itself, operate as an absolute bar to the exercise of Page 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Jan-2026 16:26:20 writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Interference by the High Court is justified where the challenge goes to the root of the decision-making process, including cases involving violation of the principles of natural justice, non-consideration of relevant material, manifest arbitrariness, or lack of proportionality.
8. The Supreme Court in M.P. High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India1 has observed that the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 neither expressly nor by necessary implication ousts the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court held as follows:
"22. It is also noteworthy that nothing contained in the NGT Act either impliedly or explicitly, ousts the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 and 227 and the power of judicial review remains intact and unaffected by the NGT Act. The prerogative of writ jurisdiction of High Courts is neither taken away nor it can be ousted, as without any doubt, it is definitely a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The High Court's exercise their discretion in tandem with the law depending on the facts of each particular case. Since the High Court's jurisdiction remain unaffected, the first question is answered in the negative, against the petitioners."
9. In the present case, the petitioner has not merely questioned the correctness of the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal, but has assailed the legality of the process by which environmental compensation has been determined. The challenge is based on allegations of denial of access to material relied upon and the imposition 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 639.
Page 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Jan-2026 16:26:20 of a penalty of an extraordinary magnitude without a reasoned examination. Having regard to the nature of the challenge raised, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition falls within the recognised exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy.
10. A principal grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed on a selective consideration of material, while ignoring relevant statutory evidence placed on record.
11. It is well settled that non-consideration of relevant material or consideration of irrelevant material vitiates decisions and renders them arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
12. In the present case, the impugned order places substantial reliance on scientific surveys conducted with the assistance of the Odisha Space Applications Centre (ORSAC) and a private consultant, namely M/s My World Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., while the statutory measurements earlier undertaken by the Geologist in the office of the Tahasildar, pursuant to which royalty and minor penalties were levied and paid, have not been subjected to any meaningful consideration.
13. The imposition of environmental compensation of the magnitude involved in the present case undoubtedly entails serious consequences. The principles of natural justice, therefore, demand strict adherence.
14. The record reveals that while the final report of the private consultant was furnished to the petitioner, the raw data and methodology forming the basis of such assessment were not supplied. A meaningful opportunity of hearing is not satisfied by the mere communication of conclusions. Where a decision is founded on technical material, fairness Page 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Jan-2026 16:26:20 requires disclosure of the material relied upon so as to enable effective rebuttal.
15. The record shows a clear difference between the excess production measured by the statutory authorities over a longer period and the excess production assessed through survey over a much shorter period.
16. While environmental compensation is not required to bear a direct correlation to royalty paid, the doctrine of proportionality nonetheless requires that the quantum imposed be commensurate with the damage caused and supported by a rational methodology. In the present case, the total royalty paid by the petitioner is approximately Rs. 12.6 lakhs, whereas the environmental compensation imposed is approximately Rs. 96 crores.
17. The impugned order does not disclose any reasoned consideration of proportionality, nor does it adequately address the petitioner's contentions relating to third-party illegal mining in the area. This omission assumes significance in view of the magnitude of the penalty imposed.
V. CONCLUSION:
18. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 11.02.2025, insofar as it relates to the computation and imposition of environmental compensation upon the petitioner, suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice and lack of proportionality.
19. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.02.2025 is set aside to the extent indicated above, and the matter is remitted to the competent Page 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Jan-2026 16:26:20 authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law, after furnishing all material relied upon, affording the petitioner a meaningful opportunity of hearing, and passing a reasoned order uninfluenced by any observations made herein.
20. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
21. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 9th Jan., 2026/-.
Page 15