Allowed

1. Chittaranjan Mahanta S/0- Mahendra Mahanta Aged About 42YEARS v. 1. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change

NGT16 Mar 2026IA No. 32/2026 in Appeal No. 9/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal allowed applications to condone delay and set aside ex parte proceedings against respondent 8 following the payment of costs. The bench directed the State of Odisha to ensure proper representation in future environmental cases, threatening exemplary costs and physical summons for non-compliance.

What did the court decide?

Inter petitions allowed; ex parte proceedings set aside; costs to be deposited; State of Odisha directed to ensure proper representation.

1. Chittaranjan Mahanta S/0- Mahendra Mahanta Aged About… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.07

¶2

Court No.1

¶3

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

¶4

Appeal No.09/2024/EZ (I.A. No.32/2026/EZ & I.A. No.33/2026/EZ)

¶5

Chittaranjan Mahanta & Ors. Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union of India & Ors.

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Date of hearing: 16.03.2026

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶11

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

¶12

Respondents:Ms. Anamika Pandey, Advocate for respondent no.1 (through VC).

¶13

Ms. K. P. Mudali, Proxy Counsel for Mr. Pronoy Mohanty, Advocate for respondent no.6 (through VC). Mr. Shakti Prasad Panda, Advocate for respondent no.7 (through VC). Mr. Pinaki Mishra, Senior Advocate (physically in PB), Ms. Aparajita Rao and Ms. Priyanka Saha, Advocate (through VC) for respondent no.8. Mr. U. Patel, Advocate for respondent no.9 (through VC). None for respondents no.2 to 5.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Vide order dated 06.01.2026 respondent no. 9 was directed to deposit costs of Rs. 5,000/- with Registrar EZB Kolkata. As per office report costs have been deposited by respondent no. 9.

¶16

Vide order dated 06.01.2026 on non-appearance respondent no. 8 was proceeded against ex parte.

¶17

I.A. No. 33/2026/EZ has been filed by respondent no. 8 for setting aside ex parte proceedings taken against respondent no. 8 vide order dated 06.01.2026 on the ground of the non-appearance being due to sufficient cause as mentioned therein. The I.A. is supported by the

¶18

¶19

affidavit of Mr. Suresh Agarwal, Director of M/s K A I International Pvt. Ltd.

¶20

Respondent no. 8 has also filed I.A. No. 32/2026/EZ for condonation of delay in filing of I.A. No. 33/2026/EZ for setting aside order dated 06.01.2026 for taking ex-parte proceedings against respondent no. 8.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsels for the other respondents have no objection if I.A. No. 32/2026/EZ and I.A. No. 33/2026/EZ are allowed.

¶22

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, reasons given in I.A. No. 32/2026/EZ and I.A. No. 33/2026/EZ which respectively make out sufficient cause for condonation of delay and disclose sufficient cause for non-appearance and also no objection, I.A. No. 32/2026/EZ and I.A. No. 33/2026/EZ are allowed and delay in filing of I.A. I.A. No. 33/2026/EZ is condoned and order dated 06.01.2026 for taking ex-parte proceedings against respondent no. 8 is set aside, subject to the payment of Rs. 5000/- as costs.

¶23

Costs may be deposited with the Registrar, EZB, Kolkata within 15 days.

¶24

Learned counsel for respondent No. 8 has submitted that respondent no. 8 has filed counter affidavit copy of which has also been enclosed with I.A. No. 33/2026/EZ.

¶25

However, the counter affidavit has not been placed on record by the Registry.

¶26

The Registry is directed to verify the factual position and place the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 8 on record.

¶27

Learned Counsel for the applicant seeks time for filing of rejoinder to counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 8.

¶28

¶29

Rejoinder to counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 8 may be filed by the application within four weeks. 13. None has appeared for respondents no. 2 to 5 - State of Odisha through Chief Secretary, Government of Odisha, ACS, Forest and Environment Department, Government of Odisha, District Collector, Sundergarh and Divisional Forest Officer, Rourkela. 14. We have observed that there is no proper representation of State of Odisha and its officers impleaded as respondents in cases before this Tribunal despite due service of notices on them. In view of the constitutional obligation to protect and improve environment, State of Odisha and its officers are mandatorily required to filed their responses and ensure their representation through duly authorized counsels/representatives and do not have the liberty of absenting from the proceedings to suffer ex-parte proceedings against them as is permissible to defendants in civil cases. Further, non appearance of the State of Odisha and its officers causes unnecessary adjournments in the cases before this Tribunal which are required to be disposed of within six months. Such conduct on the part of State of Odisha and its officers casts serious doubts regarding the commitment to rule of law and lack of proper functioning of the constitutional machinery in the State. Accordingly the Chief Secretary to the Government of Odisha and Learned Advocate General, Odisha are directed to look into the matter personally and issue appropriate instructions for ensuring that State of Odisha and its officers file appropriate responses/reports before this Tribunal and also ensure their representation before this Tribunal through duly authorized counsels/representatives.

¶30

It is clarified that in case of such non appearance/non compliance in future this Tribunal shall be constrained to impose exemplary costs on

¶31

¶32

State of Odisha and its officers and also to summon them physically for examination as witness for discovery of material facts/ascertaining compliance with environmental laws and discharge of constitutional obligations.

¶33

List on for further hearing 25.05.2026.

¶34

The Registry is directed to inform the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 to 5 about the next date of hearing fixed in the case.

¶35

A copy of this order be sent by email as well as speed post to the Chief Secretary, Government of Odisha and also the learned Advocate General, Odisha with the request to look into the matter personally and issue appropriate instructions as mentioned above.

¶36

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶37

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶38

March 16^th , 2026 Appeal No.09/2024/EZ (I.A. No.32/2026/EZ & I.A. No.33/2026/EZ) HB

¶39

1. Chittaranjan Mahanta S/0- Mahendra Mahanta Aged About 42YEARS v. 1. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

1. Chittaranjan Mahanta S/0- Mahendra Mahanta Aged About 42YEARS v. 1. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change

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

Hanumant Uttam Govekar vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Rohit Choudhury vs State of Assam

Ia No. 168/2026 in Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 12/2026 of Nitin Dev vs

Mohan Pandurang Halarnkar vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Dikshay Dattu Phadte vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Dikshay Dattu Phadte vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Umakant Tari vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Sudhakar Rout vs State of Odisha

Rohit Choudhury vs State of Assam

1. Chittaranjan Mahanta S/0- Mahendra Mahanta Aged About 42YEARS vs 1. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 6/2025 in Original Application No. 48/2024 of Ankur Sharma vs State of West Bengal through the Chief Secretary

Sakshi Gopal Ghosh vs State of West Bengal