Orissa High Court
Prahallad Biswal vs Ajay Behera &Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 13 May, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.11988 of 2025
Prahallad Biswal ..... Petitioner
Mr. Ashok Parija,
Senior Advocate
Along with Associates
-versus-
Ajay Behera &Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Ms. Gayatri Patra,
ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 13.05.2025
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid
arrangement.
2. Heard.
3. The Petitioner, by filing the Writ Petition, has
challenged the order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the
National Green Tribunal, Eastern ZoneBench, Kolkata in
Original Application No.122/2023/EZ whereby the
Petitioner, who is the Lessee of the Damanbhuin Laterite
Stone Quarry, Khordha, has been imposed with a penalty
of Rs.96,28,50,175/-(Rupees Ninety-six Crores Twenty-
Eight Lakhs FiftyThousand One Hundred & Seventy-five
Page 1 of 6.
only) towardsenvironmental compensation for excess
miningbeyond the Consent to Establish (CTE).
4. Mr. Parija, learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was granted the
mining lease over the Damanbhuin Laterite Stone Quarry
on 15.03.2022 and the CTE was granted to the Petitioner
on 29.06.2022 for production of 1500 cum of laterite stone
per annum.
5. He further submits that the Petitioner has made a
representation to the Tahasildar, Khorda (the Lessor) on
23.06.2022 bringing to his notice of the fact that illegal
mining was being undertaken by other persons without
his consent. Accordingly, an inquiry was made and the
Revenue Inspector has submitted an inquiry report to the
Tahasildar on 23.06.2022 confirming the allegations of the
Petitioner. A complaint was also made on 24.06.2022 by
the Tahasildar before the I.I.C., Jankia Police Station
against the named accused persons for illegal excavation
of 16,234 cum of Laterite Stone which was registered as
Jankia P.S. Case No.237 of 2022. It is further contended
that several other FIRs have been registered against the
same accused persons which shows that they are habitual
offenders.
Page 2 of 6.
6. In such premises, it is further contended that the
finding of the Learned Tribunal in paragraph 26 of the
impugned order that "the lease of the mine quarry in
question being in favour of the Respondent No.13 it was his
sole responsibility to ensure protection of the mine quarry and to ensure that no one could carry out illegal mining in the said quarry. In case the Respondent No.13 was of the view that certain persons were obstructing him in the operation of his mine he could have informed the District Mining Officer immediately and opted out of the lease of the said quarry" is completely erroneous and is non-consideration of relevant materials on record.
7. Moreover, the Learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the Applicant in the OA, the present Opposite Party No.1 is the paternal nephew of one Biswanath Behera, who is an accused named in the FIR bearing No.0237 dated 25.06.2022.c. Admittedly, illegal mining by third parties at the leasehold area was going on even prior to grant of lease to the present Petitioner vide CTE dated 29.06.2022. The ORSAC vide its letter and report dated 05.04.2024 has calculated the illegal mining only from 29.01.2024 to 11.04.2024 and the same has been subtracted from the excess mining attributed to the Petitioner. However, for the period prior Page 3 of 6. to 29.01.2024, the ORSAC was not able to produce any data. Consequently, illegal mining conducted by third parties throughout the history of the area has been attributed to the Petitioner. In the circumstances, illegal mining by third parties prior to 29.01.2024 cannot be attributed to the Petitioner.
8. The assessment of excess production in the joint report of the Mining Officer, Khordha and Scientist, SEIAA is based on the report of a private entity named, My World Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. Whereas the final report of My World Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. giving its finding was provided to the Petitioner, but the raw data on the basis of which the report was prepared was not shared with the Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner was not allowed to effectively examine the report of My World Consultancy Service Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law.
9. Admittedly, till 26.05.2023, the meagre excess production made by the Petitioner was regularly measured by the Tahasildar and demand notices were raised, which have been paid by the Petitioner. Therefore, when the Tahasildar had the jurisdiction and the means to take measurements of excess production, the authorities ought not to have engaged a private entity Page 4 of 6. without any credentials, named, My World Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. For measurement of excess production.
10. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 11.02.2025 has held that the Petitioner has produced 79,039.22 cum of laterite and 64,254 cum of morrum in excess of the CTE on the basis of a joint report of the Mining Officer, Khordha and Scientist, SEIAA. However, he contends that the impugned order dated 11.02.2025 is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside for the reasons that certain third parties were obstructing the Petitioner in operation of the mine, conducting illegal mining operations inside the leasehold area and, therefore, responsible for the alleged excess production. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to file this Writ Petition.
11. In such view of the matter, let notice be issued to the Opposite Parties.
12. Issue notice to the Opposite Party No.1 by Registered Post/Speed Post with A.D. Requisites shall be filed within three working days hence.
13. Learned counsel for the State waives of notice on behalf of the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 7 and 10 to 13. Let Page 5 of 6. nine extra copies of the Writ Petition be served on him in order to enable him to take instruction in the matter.
14. Mr. Susant Mishra, learned counsel, who usually appears on behalf of the Odisha State Pollution Control Board, waives of notice on behalf of the Opposite Party Nos.8 & 9. Let two extra copiesof the Writ Petition be served on him in order to enable him to take instruction in the matter.
15. List this matter on 25.06.2025.
I.A. No.6519 of 2025
16. As an interim measure, it is directed that operation of the impugned order dated 11.02.2025 at Annexure-1 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata in Original Application No.122/2023/EZ shall remain stayed till the next date of listing.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Gitanjali Date: 14-May-2025 17:30:03 Page 6 of 6.