Page 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.18697 of 2025

(In the matter of a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, 1950).

M/S. Shanti Construction

Sambalpur Pvt. Ltd., Sambalpur

…. Petitioner(s)

-versus-

State of Odisha and Ors. …. Opposite Party (s)

Advocates appeared in the case throughHybrid Mode:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Padhy, Adv.

For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC

Mr. Shanti Prapaksh Mohanty, Adv.

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

DATE OF HEARING:-09.01.2026

DATE OF JUDGMENT:-22.01.2026

Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to

quash the order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the National Green Tribunal,

Eastern Zone, Kolkata in O.A. No. 167/2023/EZ, and to restrain the

respondents from taking any coercive steps for recovery of

environmental compensation pursuant thereto.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and

is represented through its deponent, claiming residence within the

Page 2

territorial jurisdiction of the Orissa High Court and asserting that the

cause of action arose within such jurisdiction.

(ii) East Coast Railway, as Opposite Party No. 8, awarded the petitioner a

railway track laying work along with bridge work through Letter of

Acceptance dated 01.06.2022 followed by a formal contract agreement

dated 25.10.2022.

(iii) An Original Application being O.A. No. 167/2023/EZ was filed before the

National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata by certain persons

describing themselves as social workers and local villagers, alleging

illegal extraction of minor minerals such as earth and morrum by the

petitioner from Government land in Tangi-Choudwar Tahasil, District

Cuttack, for the railway work.

(iv) In the NGT proceedings, several public authorities including the State

Pollution Control Board, Collector Cuttack, Revenue Department and

Forest Department were arrayed as respondents on allegations of

inaction despite complaints.

(v) The NGT, by order dated 23.11.2023, constituted a Joint Committee

comprising senior scientist or officer of the State Pollution Control Board,

District Mining Officer Cuttack, Collector Cuttack or representative not

below ADM, and Divisional Forest Officer Cuttack, with the Board as the

nodal body for logistics and for filing the inspection report on affidavit,

and directions to recommend penalty, environmental compensation, and

remedial measures if violations were found.

(vi) Pursuant to the NGT order, the Committee visited the site on 18.12.2023

and noted excavation of morrum or laterite from alleged plots and

Page 3

surrounding areas, and also recorded that pits were water-filled, which

affected ascertainment of depth and quantification at that time.

(vii) The Committee requested the Mining Officer, being a member and

competent authority, to conduct a detailed scientific survey to assess the

actual quantity excavated from specified plots and surrounding areas,

and a report was thereafter prepared and filed before the NGT through

the Board’s affidavit.

(viii) The Joint Committee report recommended environmental compensation

and also compensation as per the Odisha Minor and Minerals

Compensation Rules, 2016, and the petitioner filed objections before the

NGT.

(ix) The NGT disposed of the Original Application by order dated 02.05.2025

directing the State respondents and the State Pollution Control Board,

Odisha to take action against the petitioner for recovery of environmental

compensation in accordance with law after giving full opportunity of

hearing, while stating it did not express any opinion on the merits of the

computation so as not to prejudice the petitioner’s defence before the

competent forum.

(x) After the NGT order dated 02.05.2025, the petitioner filed the present writ

petition before the High Court challenging that NGT order, while the

Pollution Control Board states that it had not yet taken steps to recover

the environmental compensation pursuant to the NGT directions.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following

submissions in support of his contentions:

Page 4

(i) The impugned NGT order dated 02.05.2025 is alleged to violate

principles of natural justice because the petitioner claims it was not

issued notice of the Joint Committee site visit dated 18.12.2023 and the

inquiry was conducted behind its back, resulting in reliance on a report

procured without participation by the petitioner.

(ii) The NGT is alleged to have abdicated and outsourced its adjudicatory

function by mechanically following the Joint Committee report and

issuing directions based on committee findings rather than undertaking

independent adjudication on the objections and materials placed by the

petitioner.

(iii) The constitution of the Joint Committee is alleged to be vitiated by bias

because it comprised State authorities and regulatory bodies against

whom allegations of inaction were made in the Original Application,

attracting the principle nemo judex in causa sua and creating a conflict of

interest that undermines fairness and appearance of justice.

(iv) The petitioner challenges the NGT’s jurisdiction on the ground that

disputes relating to illegal extraction of minor minerals are governed by

the Mines and Minerals legal framework and the Odisha Minor Mineral

Concession Rules, 2016, and do not fall within the NGT’s statutory

jurisdiction confined to substantial questions relating to environment

arising out of enactments in Schedule I of the NGT Act, 2010.

(v) The petitioner contends the Joint Committee itself recorded that the site

was water-filled and quantification was not possible during the joint

visit, yet the inquiry was sub-delegated to the Mining Officer whose

independent report became the basis of the committee report, which is

Page 5

alleged to be improper and hit by the principle delegatus non

potestdelegare, and also raises transparency concerns.

(vi) The petitioner relies on MoEF and CC Notification S.O. 1224(E) dated

28.03.2020 inserting Item 6 of Appendix IX to the EIA Notification, 2006

to contend that prior environmental clearance is not required for

extraction or borrowing of ordinary earth for linear projects such as

roads, pipelines, and laying of railway lines, and asserts its activity falls

within this exemption.

(vii) The petitioner asserts it obtained necessary permissions from competent

authorities for execution of the railway project including utilisation of

earth, and claims it acted bona fide in reliance on statutory permissions

and railway authorisation for sourcing borrow material from specified

locations.

(viii) The petitioner contends the impugned order records no specific finding

of environmental damage, such as deforestation, pollution, or harm to

wildlife or habitats, and argues environmental compensation under the

Polluter Pays principle cannot be imposed merely for technical non-

compliance without demonstrated environmental harm or jurisdictional

facts.

(ix) The petitioner challenges the environmental compensation of Rs.

1,20,10,000 as arbitrary, disproportionate, and violative of Article 14, and

further argues that the CPCB methodology relied upon for assessing

environmental compensation does not cover the alleged acts in the

present case.

Page 6

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the

following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The State Pollution Control Board contends the writ petition is premature

because, although the NGT directed recovery of environmental

compensation after giving the petitioner full opportunity of hearing, the

Board had not yet initiated any recovery steps when the petitioner

approached the High Court.

(ii) The Board contends the writ petition is not maintainable because the

NGT order is appealable under Section 22 of the NGT Act, 2010, and the

petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy which should be pursued

instead of invoking writ jurisdiction.

(iii) The Board contends the NGT passed the impugned order after

considering the expert committee report and after giving opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner, and the NGT expressly directed that recovery

be undertaken in accordance with law after giving full opportunity of

hearing, which safeguards due process at the stage of implementation.

(iv) The Board contends the MoEF and CC notification dated 28.03.2020

regarding exemption for ordinary earth is inapplicable because, on

inspection, the committee observed excavation of morrum or laterite, and

not merely ordinary earth, and the alleged activity involved extraction

without environmental clearance and without consent to establish and

consent to operate from the Board, which are stated to be mandatory

statutory requirements.

Page 7

(v) The Tahasildar, Tangi-Choudwar contends the writ petition is

misconceived and not maintainable and asserts that the NGT constituted

the committee by order dated 23.11.2023, the committee submitted its

report on 18.12.2023, and the report was filed before the NGT through an

affidavit of the Member Secretary of the Pollution Control Board on

09.02.2024.

(vi) The Tahasildar contends that during the committee visit, pits were found

and were water-filled, and therefore the Mining Officer was tasked to

conduct a detailed scientific survey to quantify extraction from specified

plots, and the allegation that this was improper is baseless.

(vii) The Tahasildar contends temporary permission had been granted to the

petitioner to lift and transport 2000 cum of ordinary earth or morrum

from specified plots subject to conditions, but during joint enquiry it was

found that the petitioner illegally lifted 1,00,000 cum from the scheduled

plots leading to imposition of penalty and royalty of Rs. 75,00,000, with

part deposit made and balance demanded.

(viii) The Tahasildar further contends that on subsequent inspection upon

public complaints, the petitioner was found to have illegally excavated

approximately 2,60,580 cum of ordinary earth or morrum from certain

plots recorded as jungle category land, and penalty and royalty

amounting to Rs. 1,60,71,320 was imposed on the petitioner’s firm

through a letter dated 10.07.2023, which remains unpaid.

(ix) The opposite parties contend, overall, that the petitioner engaged in

illegal mining or excavation beyond permissions and in violation of

Page 8

terms and conditions, and therefore the writ petition does not merit

consideration and is liable to be dismissed.

IV. JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS :

5. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents

placed before this Court.

6. The writ petition challenges the NGT’s order of 02.05.2025 directing

recovery of environmental compensation without a hearing and on the

basis of a joint committee report. The main issues are the petition’s

maintainability despite the statutory right of appeal, and whether the

NGT committed jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice by

outsourcing adjudication to a committee and failing to hear the

petitioner.

7. The opposite parties contend that the petitioner must first appeal to the

Supreme Court under Section 22 of the NGT Act and that the writ is

premature. However, the availability of an alternate remedy does not

render a writ petition automatically non-maintainable. The Supreme

Court has consistently held that an alternative remedy is not an absolute

bar to relief under Article 226, especially where fundamental rights or

principles of natural justice are at stake or the order is wholly without

jurisdiction.

8. In fact, in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar Trademarks,

Mumbai

1

, the Court emphasized that the High Court has discretion to

entertain a writ petition notwithstanding an alternate remedy, in at least

three contingencies: enforcement of fundamental rights, violation of

1

(1998) 8 SCC 1

Page 9

natural justice, or where the order is wholly without jurisdiction. The

Court held as follows:

“Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court,

having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to

entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High

Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of

which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is

available, the High Court would not normally exercise its

jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been

consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at

least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition

has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental

Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of

natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly

without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.

There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down

this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old

decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as

they still hold the field.”

9. These exceptions apply here. The petitioner raises serious allegations of

breach of natural justice and procedural infirmity by the NGT. In such

circumstances the High Court may exercise its writ jurisdiction even

though an appeal to the Supreme Court is theoretically available.

Accordingly, the writ petition is held maintainable and will be examined

on merits.

10. Although extraction of minor minerals is primarily governed by mining

laws, the environmental impact of such extraction falls squarely within

the NGT’s remit. The NGT is an expert tribunal vested with broad

powers to adjudicate substantial questions of environment law arising

under the statutes listed in Schedule I of the NGT Act. Here, the

Page 10

complaints allege large-scale illegal excavation from government land

causing environmental degradation. Such extraction can lead to pollution

of land and water and damage to the ecosystem, engaging the

Environment (Protection) Act and related statutes under Schedule I.

11. The judicial precedents have reaffirmed that NGT’s jurisdiction cannot be

unduly narrowed and it is to be treated as an expert adjudicatory body

on environmental issues. The Supreme Court in Kantha Vibhag Yuva

Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust v. State of Gujarat

2

noted that the NGT’s

powers include providing relief, restitution and compensation in

environmental matters. The relevant excerpts are produced below:

“16. Section 14 and Section 15 entrust adjudicatory

functions to the NGT. The NGT is a specialized body

comprising of judicial and expert members. Judicial

members bring to bear their experience in adjudicating

cases. On the other hand, expert members bring into the

decision-making process scientific knowledge on issues

concerning the environment…”

12. There is no merit in the contention that the NGT had no jurisdiction

simply because the extraction involved minor minerals. By causing soil

erosion and water pollution, illegal mining raises “substantial questions

relating to environment” within the meaning of Section 14(1) of the NGT

Act. Hence the NGT was competent to entertain the original application

and constitute the joint committee. Even so, the manner in which it

discharged that function is subject to review as discussed below.

13. The core grievance is that the petitioner was never given notice of the

joint committee’s site inspection (18.12.2023) or an opportunity to be

2

2022 SCC OnLine SC 120

Page 11

heard on the committee’s report, which led to directions for recovery of

compensation. This is a fundamental breach of natural justice. The

Supreme Court in the case of Grasim Industries Limited v. State of

Madhya Pradesh

3

in this regard, has held as follows:

“A tribunal is required to arrive at its decision by fully

considering the facts and circumstances of the case before it.

It cannot outsource an opinion and base its decision on such

an opinion. A reliance in this respect should be placed on the

judgment of this Court in Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj

Parivartan Trust and Others v. State of Gujarat and

Others.”

14. The Court in the abovementioned case condemned an NGT order passed

entirely on a committee’s findings without hearing the concerned party.

It noted that the NGT’s procedure was totally unknown to the settled

principles of natural justice, observing that “neither was any notice given by

the Joint Committee before giving an adverse report against the appellant nor the

NGT permitted impleadment” of the appellant. The Court held that such an

approach “smacks of condemning a person unheard”. This decision was set

aside and remanded because the NGT erred in proceeding ex parte.

15. In this case, exactly the same error is made. The Joint Committee’s report

was relied on to recommend heavy compensation, yet the petitioner had

no opportunity to contest its findings. The petitioner was not impleaded

in the NGT proceedings, nor was it given notice of the joint inspection.

The NGT Order itself even notes that the pits were water-filled and the

committee could not ascertain the full extent at the time. Instead of

permitting the petitioner to be heard on these findings, the NGT

3

2024 INSC 926

Page 12

mechanically issued directions to recover compensation. This procedure

violates the rule of audi alteram partem. An adjudicatory tribunal must

give the affected person a chance to be heard before reaching a decision.

16. Linked to the above, it is impermissible for the NGT to abdicate its

judicial role by simply rubber-stamping the committee’s report. The

Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the core adjudicatory function of

the NGT is non-delegable. In Kantha Vibhag (Supra), the Court declared

that while expert committees may assist by fact-finding, the NGT itself

must adjudicate the issues. It set aside an NGT order that required parties

to approach technical committees for relief, noting that the tribunal had

abdicated its jurisdiction and entrusted judicial functions to an

administrative expert committee, which is unsustainable as adjudication

is not a delegable function.

17. The same principle was reiterated in Grasim (Supra) the NGT “cannot

outsource” the decision by basing its order solely on a committee report.

Here too, by directing recovery based on the joint committee without an

independent evaluation of the petitioner’s case, the NGT has effectively

delegated its judgment to the committee. This is contrary to Kantha and

Grasim. The NGT must review objections, apply its judicial mind and

render an order; it cannot abdicate that responsibility.

18. The petitioner also points out that the Joint Committee was constituted of

officials (State Pollution Control Board, District Mining Officer,

Collector/ADM, Divisional Forest Officer) who were themselves

respondents or alleged defaulting authorities in the original application.

This raises a potential conflict under the maxim nemo judex in causa sua.

Page 13

While no specific precedent is cited for committee composition, the

combined effect of no notice plus possible bias underscores the

unfairness. In any event, the Supreme Court’s rulings in Grasim (Supra)

and Kantha (Supra) render this moot: the NGT should not have relied on

such a committee’s findings without hearing the petitioner, regardless of

membership.

19. The petitioner invokes the MoEF&CC notification of 28.03.2020 (Item 6,

Appendix IX of the EIA Notification, 2006), which exempts extraction of

ordinary earth for linear projects (roads, railways, pipelines) from prior

environmental clearance. It is contended that its excavations fall within

this exemption and that it also obtained local permissions to source earth.

The respondents counter that the material excavated was laterite/morrum

(not mere “ordinary earth”) and that no valid consents or clearances

(CTE/CTO) were in place.

20. On this record, no environmental clearance was obtained for the mining

activity. Whether or not the exemption technically applies (which would

require scrutiny of the material and purpose), the petitioners’ failure to

obtain any clearances or consents is a statutory breach under the EPA

and Water Acts. However, the question of permits and exemptions is

primarily one of facts and merits for the competent forum. Crucially, the

NGT did not finally adjudicate those points, it merely directed

compensation. If this Court were to reach the exemption issue, it would

note that even if the MoEF notification excused prior EC, the absence of

prescribed consents would still render the extraction unauthorized. That

Page 14

said, given the NGT’s quashing on procedural grounds, these factual and

regulatory aspects need not be fully resolved here.

21. The petitioner argues that the compensation of ₹1,20,10,000 (as computed

by the State Board) is arbitrary and disproportionate, and that the CPCB

guidelines do not cover excavation of earth. Even if the petitioners had

illegally excavated, compensation under the “polluter pays” principle

must have a basis in law and a nexus to actual harm. The Supreme Court

has warned against using turnover or arbitrary formulas.

22. In Benzo Chem Industrial (P) Ltd. v. Arvind Mahajan

4

, the Court

invalidated an NGT penalty that bore no relation to the pollution,

holding that generation of revenue has no nexus with the amount of

penalty, and that the rule of law does not permit the State to extract a

pound of flesh. The relevant excerpt:

“In any case, the generation of revenue would have no

nexus with the amount of penalty to be ascertained for

environmental damages. It is further to be noted that the

learned NGT found the appellant to be guilty of violations,

the least that was expected from the NGT is to give a notice

to the appellant before imposing such a heavy penalty.”

23. The CPCB’s compensation guidelines are not binding law unless enacted

by Parliament. Here the NGT expressly refrained from endorsing the

computation, leaving details for “competent authority”. In short, any

calculation of damages must await an adversarial hearing.

V. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTION:

24. In sum, the Writ Petition discloses a clear case of procedural illegality.

The NGT’s order of 02.05.2025 is vitiated by breach of natural justice and

4

2024 SCC OnLine SC 3543

Page 15

by unlawful delegation of its judicial function to the joint committee

without affording the petitioner a hearing. The alternative remedy of

appeal does not preclude relief, since the order is tainted by fundamental

unfairness.

25. For the abovementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the

impugned NGT order is quashed and set aside. The parties are left to

pursue their rights before the appropriate authority or forum consistent

with law, and the petitioner shall not be prejudiced in any manner

pending such proceedings.

26. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack,

Dated 22

nd

Jan., 2026/