Disposed

Dasharu Naik and Others v. State of Odisha

NGT25 Aug 2026Original Application No. 151/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Nagpur Bench applied suo-motu jurisdiction to grievances regarding illegal mining by J.S.W Plant in Odisha. Tribunal constituted a committee to verify facts and submit a report within two months instead of dismissing the application for non-prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Committee constituted to verify factual position and submit report within two months; application disposed of by way of these directions.

Dasharu Naik and Others vs State of Odisha — Mining and Natural Resources | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.03

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application No.151/2026/EZ

¶4

Dasharu Naik & Ors. Applicants

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Odisha & Ors. Respondents

¶7

Date of hearing: 25.08.2026

¶8

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

¶9

Applicants: None for the applicants.

¶10

ORDER

¶11

Mr. Dasharu Naik and others have sent the present letter petition to this Tribunal, through speed-post dated 23.03.2026 which has been treated and registered as Original Application (O.A.) No.151/2026/EZ for exercise of suo-motu jurisdiction in view of law laid down by Hon’ble

¶12

Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Versus Ankita Sinha and others, (2022) 13 SCC 401 .

¶13

The applicants have raised grievances regarding illegal mining and environmental violations by J.S.W Plant. The relevant part of the letter petition, treated as O.A., which enumerates grievances of the applicants, is reproduced as under:-

¶14

1.“That the present application is being filed by the villagers of Kalamang Village, Koida Block, Sub-Division Bonai, District Sundargarh, Odisha, seeking intervention of this Hon’ble Tribunal against illegal mining and environmental violations by J.S.W Plant.

¶15

2.That the Respondent Company is engaged in illegal extraction of iron and manganese without proper authorization and in violation of environmental laws.

¶16

¶17

3.That no Gram Sabha consent has been obtained prior to such activities, which is mandatory under law, especially in Scheduled Areas.

¶18

4.That the respondent has forcibly occupied forest ladn as well as land belonging to Scheduled Tribe (S.T.) persons and local villagers without following due legal procedure.

¶19

5.That the company has installed screening and washing plants without consent of villagers and without valid environmental clearance.

¶20

6.That the activities of the Respondent are causing serious environmental damage including:

¶21

Pollution of Sonandi River near Kalamang

¶22

Adverse impact on wildlife and forest ecology

¶23

Degradation of natural resources

¶24

7.That the Respondent has failed to provide employment to local villagers despite assurances.

¶25

8.That the villagers are being threatened and intimidated by the company using its financial and influential power.

¶26

9.That the Respondent company induced villagers to sell their land by false promises, including:

¶27

Employment for them and their legal heirs

¶28

Transportation work opportunities

¶29

Engagement as service providers and contractors

¶30

10. That relying upon such assurances, many villagers sold their land, but the company has failed to fulfill its promises, thereby cheating and exploiting the villagers

¶31

11. That the applicants are submitting video evidence which clearly shows illegal mining, land encroachment, and environmental damage caused by the Respondent.

¶32

12. That the cause of action is continuing in nature as the illegal activities are still ongoing.

¶33

13. That the applicants have repeatedly approached the local authorities as well as the district administration by way of written and oral complaints. However, no effective action has been taken till date.

¶34

14. That due to inaction of the authorities, the villagers are in a state of distress and helplessness, and their grievances remain unheard.

¶35

15. That the applicants are therefore constrained to approach this Hon’ble Tribunal seeking justice.

¶36

In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly:

¶37

a) Take cognizance of the illegal acts of the Respondent.

¶38

b) Order immediate inspection and investigation

¶39

c) Direct stoppage of illegal mining and plant operations.

¶40

d) Order restoration of forest land and Sonanadi River.

¶41

e) Ensure protection of rights of S.T. villagers and local residents.

¶42

f) Initiate appropriate legal action and impose penalties against the Respondent.

¶43

g) Pass any other order(s) deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and environmental protection.”

¶44

¶45

The O.A. was taken up for hearing on 09.07.2026, on which date the applicants did not appear personally or through authorized representative/counsel on which the Registry was directed to issue notice to the applicants to appear physically or through VC and to produce the material available with them in support of the averments made in the O.A. before this Tribunal on the next date of hearing fixed.

¶46

Despite such information, the applicants have not appeared before this Tribunal today personally or through any authorized representative/counsel and no material has been placed on record.

¶47

However, in view of the nature and magnitude of grievances raised and substantial environmental questions involved, we consider it appropriate to proceed further on the present O.A. instead of dismissing the same in default for non-prosecution.

¶48

We have gone through the O.A. The averments made in the O.A. raise substantial questions relating to environment arising out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule-I to the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

¶49

However, we are of the considered view that the averments made in the application require physical verification of the factual position by the concerned State Authorities who are also under statutory obligations to take prompt remedial action on the basis of such physical verification of the factual position in case of environmental violations.

¶50

Accordingly, we constitute a Committee comprising of the representatives of the Member Secretary, Odisha State Pollution Control Board and District Magistrate, Sundergarh and direct the same to look into the grievances of the applicants, associate the applicants and representative of the concerned project proponents, verify the factual position and take appropriate remedial action in case of environmental

¶51

¶52

violations by following due course of law and giving opportunity of being heard to the applicant, concerned project proponents and persons adversely affected in accordance with principle of natural justice and to submit its report within two months to this Tribunal.

¶53

Report as directed above may be filed before the learned Registrar of this Tribunal at Kolkata, who shall be at liberty to place the matter before the Bench if the report is not filed within specified period and if on filing of the report, further orders by the Bench are considered to be necessary.

¶54

The present original application is disposed of accordingly with directions as mentioned above.

¶55

A copy of this order alongwith copy of O.A. and documents attached therewith may be sent to the Member Secretary, Odisha State Pollution Control Board and the District Magistrate, Sundergarh by email for requisite information/compliance.

¶56

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶57

Ishwar Singh, EM

¶58

August 25^th , 2026 Original Application No.151/2026/EZ AM

¶59

Dasharu Naik and Others v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dasharu Naik and Others 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vandana Dewan vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Imtiyaz Ibrahimbhai Patel vs State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Vijay Singh Rajput vs Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Binod Kumar Sahoo vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Suo Moto Titled Bypass Ban Gaya Kachra Dumping Point Mrat Maveshi Bhi Yahin Fek Rahe Sankraman Ka Khatra Dated 14TH August 2026 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Suo Moto Titled Ab Rat Me Bhi Avaidh Khanan 9 Ghante Me Nikle Rahe 12 Truck Kopra Dated 28TH October 2025 in Db Star Bhopal Newspaper vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Surender Singh Parihar vs

Nizamuddin Asmad Jalal vs Jalal Zubair Zahid Hussain

Mantu Soni vs Jharkhand Pollution Control Board

Hiranmoy Sarkar vs State of West Bengal

Tapan Kumar Mandal vs 1. the West Bengal Pollution Control Board

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 71/2026 in Original Application No. 537/2022 of Mukesh Kumar Chouhan vs

Pratap Chandra Mohanty Aged About 46 Years S/O-Sunakar Mohanty vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Youth United for Sustainable Environment Trust Represented by Its President Santanu Kumar Bhukta S/O Golak Bhukta Aged About 32 Years vs 1. State of Odisha through Chief Secretary Government of Odisha