Dismissed

Saheen Tarannum v. State of Odisha

NGT11 Feb 2026IA No. 13/2026 in Original Application No. 85/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On 11.02.2026, the NGT Eastern Zone Bench dismissed an interlocutory application filed by respondents seeking waiver of costs imposed for non-appearance due to an internet glitch. The Court held that the technical issue did not constitute sufficient grounds for recalling the order.

What did the court decide?

Interlocutory application No.13/2026/EZ dismissed; costs to be deposited within 15 days.

Saheen Tarannum vs State of Odisha — Writ and Judicial Review | 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.85/2023/EZ (I.A. No.13/2026/EZ)

¶5

Saheen Tarannum & Anr. Applicants

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Date of hearing: 11.02.2026

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. ISHWAR SINGH, EXPERT MEMBER

¶11

Applicants: Mr. Kaustav Dhar, Advocate for the applicants (through VC).

¶12

Respondents: Mr. Navanjay Mahapatra, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 5 (through VC). Mr. Dipanjan Gosh, Advocate for respondent no.2 (through VC). Mr. Ashok Prasad, Advocate for respondents no.3, 4 & 8 (physically in EZB). Mr. Ipsit Acharya, Advocate for respondent no.6 (through VC). Mr. Abhishek Jain and Ms. Meenakshi Manot, Advocates for respondents no.7, 10 & 11 (through VC). Mr. Surendra Kumar, Advocate for respondent no.9 (through VC).

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Learned Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 5 has submitted that respondent no. 5 has already filed compliance report and respondent no. 5 does not want to file any further response and that respondent no. 1 adopts the compliance report filed by respondent no. 5 and respondent no. 1 also does not want to file any separate response.

¶15

I.A. No.13/2026/EZ has been filed by respondents no.1 and 5 seeking waiver of costs imposed on them vide order dated 15.10.2025.

¶16

Respondents no. 1 and 5 have sought waiver of costs on the ground that the Respondents had entered appearance on earlier dates through Navanjay Mahapatra, Advocate. On 15.10.2025, Navanjay

¶17

¶18

Mahapatra, Advocate tried his best to appear before this Tribunal through virtual mode but due to a technical glitch/internet connectivity issue, was unable to do so. The act of non-appearance was neither intentional nor deliberate and was beyond the control of the Respondents.

¶19

We have heard Learned Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 5 and gone through the relevant record.

¶20

Costs were imposed on respondents no. 1 and 5 vide order dated 15.10.2025 for detailed reasons mentioned therein. No sufficient and valid ground for recall of above said order and the waiver of costs is made out. Accordingly, I.A. No. 13/2026/EZ is dismissed.

¶21

Costs may be deposited by respondents no. 1 and 5 within 15 days in terms of order dated 15.10.2025.

¶22

Responses by respondent no.1, 2, 8 and 9 have not been filed so far.

¶23

Responses by abovesaid respondents may be filed within four weeks.

¶24

List on 17.04.2026 for further consideration.

¶25

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶26

Ishwar Singh, EM

¶27

February 11^th , 2026 Original Application No.85/2023/EZ (I.A. No.13/2026/EZ) SN

¶28

Saheen Tarannum v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saheen Tarannum v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mamta Sharma vs Gram Sabha

Mamta Sharma vs Gram Sabha

Surjeet Singh vs the Member Secretary State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Paryavaran Parisar

Rajender vs Union of India

K.S. Mohan vs the Corporation of Coimbatore

K.S. Mohan vs the Corporation of Coimbatore

Judith vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

K. Balamurugan vs the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority

Paribesh Academy vs the State of West Bengal

Digambar Bhoi S/O- Jeherulal Bhoi Aged About- 51 Years vs 1. State of Odisha through Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Tapan Kumar Lenka vs State of Odisha

Wildlife Society of Orissa Represented by Its Secretary vs State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Govt. of Odisha

Aman Gupta vs

Sushant Gautam vs