Partly allowed

1. Jhadeswar Pradhan S/O Rasanand Pradhan Aged About 60YEARS v. 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

NGT6 Feb 2026IA No. 100/2025 in Original Application No. 60/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal dismissed the original application's underlying recovery mandate but allowed the interim application to halt recovery proceedings. The court held that neither the Committee nor the Tribunal had passed a valid order imposing environmental compensation due to the absence of opportunity for the lessee to be heard.

What did the court decide?

No proceedings for recovery of environmental compensation can be taken based on the order dated 08.07.2025 passed by this Tribunal.

1. Jhadeswar Pradhan S/O Rasanand Pradhan Aged About… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.05

¶2

Court No.1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA (THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

¶4

Original Application No.60/2025/EZ (I.A. No.100/2025/EZ)

¶5

Smt. Chhabibala Pradhan Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Date of hearing: 06.02.2026

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶11

Applicant: Mr. Sankar Prasad Pani and Mr. Ashutosh Padhy, Advocates for the applicant (through VC).

¶12

Respondents:Mr. Varun Mishra, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 8 (through

¶13

VC). Ms. Papiya Banerjee Bihani, Advocate for respondent no.9 (through VC).

¶14

Mr. Apurba Ghosh, Advocate for respondent no.10 (through VC). Mr. Pravat Kumar Muduli, Advocate for respondent no.12 (through VC). None for respondents no.3 and 11.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The applicant filed present original application under Sections 14 and 15 read with Section18 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 raising grievance regarding excessive mining in violation of environmental norms as mentioned therein.

¶17

This Tribunal constituted a Committee and directed the same to submit the report with regard to the allegations made in the original application.

¶18

Report of the committee was filed by respondent no.3-Collector and District Magistrate, Sundergarh along with counter affidavit dated 01.07.2025 (pages no. 96-117 of the paper book).

¶19

¶20

This Tribunal considered the report on 08.07.2025 and observed in para no. 7 and 12 of order dated 08.07.2025 as under:

¶21

“7. Along with this affidavit, a Compliance status of Environmental Clearance conditions on Paragraph nos.10 to 20 has been filed which mentions that the sand bed unit may be imposed environmental compensation as calculated by the Joint Committee as about Rs. 25,41,188.00/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs Fourty One Thousand one hundred eighty-eight only) and that the same may be recovered from the Lessee of M/s Tendra Sand Bed-II, i.e., the Respondent No. 12 herein.

¶22

X X X X 12. We further direct the State Respondents to file the Action Taken Report with regard to the recovery of Environmental Compensation.”

¶23

I.A. No.100/2025/EZ has been filed by respondent no.12-Smt. Rashmi Rekha Sahu for modification of order dated 08.07.2025 passed in O.A.No. 60/2025/EZ whereby directions were issued to State Respondents to file the action taken report regarding recovery of environmental compensation from the Applicant/Respondent No.12 on the basis of report of the Committee.

¶24

Briefly stated, respondent no. 12 has sought modification of the order on the grounds that respondent no.12 was not given any notice by the Committee to remain present on the date of visit on the site on 02.05.2025 and respondent no.12 was not granted opportunity by this Tribunal to file objections to the report of the Committee.

¶25

Reply dated 15.12.2025 was filed to I.A. No.100/2025/EZ by State Respondents no. 1 to 8 mentioning in para 6 thereof that pursuant to the order dated 08.07.2025 passed by this Tribunal, Respondents no. 1 to 8 have filed their Action Taken Report dated 21.08.2025 and have raised the demand for the environmental compensation vide demand letter No. 2768/Mines dated 20.08.2025.

¶26

¶27

Reply to I.A. No.100/2025/EZ has not been filed by other respondents and other respondents do not want to file any reply to I.A. No.100/2025/EZ.

¶28

We have heard Learned Counsels for the parties and gone through the material on record.

¶29

In its report, Committee constituted by this Tribunal had calculated environmental compensation and recommended that environmental compensation as calculated by the committee may be imposed on and recovered from respondent no.12.

¶30

While passing order dated 04.04.2025, this Tribunal had not given any direction to the joint committee to calculate the environmental compensation. The Committee did not have any specific power conferred by any enactment or rules framed thereunder for calculation and imposition of environmental compensation. In any case opportunity of being heard was not granted to respondent no.12 by the Committee before making the calculation of environmental compensation and recommendation for its imposition and recovery in its report and no order for imposition of environmental compensation on respondent no.12 was passed by the Committee.

¶31

Before passing any order for recovery of environmental compensation on the basis thereof, this Tribunal was legally bound to give an opportunity to respondent no.12 to file objections against report of the Committee including calculation of environmental compensation and recommendation for recovery thereof. It is evident from a bare reading of the relevant part of order dated 08.07.2025 that this Tribunal did not conduct any proceedings for imposition of environmental compensation on respondent no.12 and this Tribunal did not in so many

¶32

¶33

words pass any order for imposition of environmental compensation on respondent no.12. The observations made by this Tribunal in para no. 7 cannot be read as order passed by this Tribunal for imposition and recovery of environmental compensation.

¶34

Observations made by this Tribunal in para no. 12 of order dated 08.07.2025 requiring the State respondents to file action taken report regarding recovery of environmental compensation by itself mandated recovery of the same on the basis of appropriate order for imposition of environmental compensation passed by competent authority after giving opportunity of being heard to respondent no.12 and observations in para 12 of order dated 08.07.2025 also cannot be treated as an order for imposition and recovery of environmental compensation in terms of the report of the Committee constituted by this Tribunal.

¶35

Even though Odisha State Pollution Control Board has power to impose environmental compensation under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution), Act, 1974 and Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgement dated 04.08.2025 passed in Civil Appeal No(s). 757-760/2013, Delhi Pollution Control Committee vs. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. Etc. with Civil Appeal No(s).1977-2011/2013 but no order imposing environmental compensation was passed by the OSPCB prior to 08.07.2025 or even thereafter. Such environmental compensation can be imposed by OSPCB on the project proponent in exercise of above referred statutory powers but any such exercise for imposition of environmental compensation is subject to subordinate legislation to be made in compliance with the directions given by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-mentioned case.

¶36

¶37

In the absence of such order, State respondents could not initiate proceedings for recovery of environmental compensation and if initiated such proceeding will be liable to be withdrawn.

¶38

In view of the above discussed facts and circumstances of the case and the aspects highlighted above, we are of the considered view that order dated 08.07.2025, which did not in any manner warrant recovery of environmental compensation without order of Competent Authority, does not require any modification.

¶39

However, no proceedings for recovery of environmental compensation can be taken, on the basis of order dated 08.07.2025 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.60/2025/EZ, for the simple reason that no order imposing environmental compensation of Rs . 25,41,188.00/- on respondent no.12 was passed by this Tribunal or any other Competent Authority on or before that date and I.A. No. 100/2025/EZ is allowed to that extent.

¶40

None has appeared for respondent no.11 and for the present proceedings, respondent no.11 is proceeded against ex-parte .

¶41

Pleadings are stated to be complete as no further pleadings/responses are to be filed.

¶42

List on 04.05.2026 for final hearing.

¶43

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶44

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶45

February 06^th , 2026 Original Application No.60/2025/EZ (I.A. No.100/2025/EZ) JG.

¶46

1. Jhadeswar Pradhan S/O Rasanand Pradhan Aged About 60YEARS v. 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

1. Jhadeswar Pradhan S/O Rasanand Pradhan Aged About 60YEARS v. 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Sandeep Mishra vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Its Principal Secretary

Shri Sandeep Mishra vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Its Principal Secretary

Imran Ali vs Ministry of Environment

Imran Ali vs Ministry of Environment

Arvind Singh vs Union of India

Mahavir Singh vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi

Mamta Sharma vs Gram Sabha

Mamta Sharma vs Gram Sabha

Subhas Datta vs State of Bihar

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 102/2025 in Original Application No. 142/2024 of Surender vs

Amit Tyagi vs

Lakshmikant Tiwari vs

Rajendra Singh vs

Moolchand Kumar vs