Disposed

Manoranjan Jena v. Orissa State Pollution Control Board

NGT16 Jul 2026Original Application No. 159/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant challenged production clearances and unsealing of an industrial unit allegedly operating illegally in a residential zone. NGT deemed physical verification essential, directing OSPCB to investigate grievances via complaint mechanism and submit an action report.

What did the court decide?

Directed OSPCB to treat the application as a complaint, conduct physical verification, follow natural justice, and submit an action report within three months.

Manoranjan Jena vs Orissa State Pollution Control Board — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.01

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application No.159/2026/EZ

¶4

Manoranjan Jena Applicant Versus State Pollution Control Board, Odisha & Ors. Respondents

¶5

Date of hearing: 16.07.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. ISHWAR SINGH, EXPERT MEMBER

¶6

Applicant: Mr. Manoranjan Jena-Applicant in person (through VC).

¶7

ORDER

¶8

The applicant has filed the present application under Section 14

¶9

read with Sections 15 and 18(1) and (2) of the National Green Tribunal

¶10

Act, 2010 seeking following reliefs:-

¶11

1. “PERMANENTLY QUASH AND SET ASIDE the Consent to operate by respondent no.1 (SPCB) on 24.04.2026 under Application No. 5879778, as it was obtained through deliberate misrepresentation of judicial orders, completely bypassed operational physical inspections, and directly violates residential zoning buffers.

¶12

2. PERMANENTLY QUASH AND SET ASIDE the Memorandum (Amendment) for Consent to Establish (no. 1665/CTE312/2014) dated 24.04.2026 (Annexure-12), as issuing a pre-construction permit simultaneously with an operating permit to an active plant inside a residential layout is an absolute legal and procedural error.

¶13

3. PERMANENTLY QUASH, SET ASIDE, AND DECLARE ILLEGAL the unsealing action executed by Respondent No.2 (The Collector, Ganjam) on 02.06.2026, as it was passed over un-converted residential land, explicitly misrepresented the qualified text of the OHRC order dated 12.05.2026, and entirely bypassed the “Polluter Pays” principle.

¶14

4. DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.2 (THE COLLECTOR, GANJAM) to re-impose and maintain strict physical locks and structural seals on M/s Sanghamitra Agro Industry and prevent it from running any boiler operations or

¶15

¶16

unauthorized commercial generators inside the residential corridor of Village Gadahumma.

¶17

5. DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.1 (SPCB) to calculate and recover full, punitive Environmental Compensation fines from the private respondents for their 2,090 days of continuous unlicensed operations between 01.04.2019 and 19.12.2024, without allowing any administrative waivers or dilutions.

¶18

6. TO INITIATE A FORMAL INQUIRY into the regional officers of SPCB Berhampur for deliberate omission of statutory enforcement duties, willful evasion of the “polluter pays” principle, and the active issuance of clearances over a padlocked plant.

¶19

7. DIRECT AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION into the highly biased and scientifically fabricated findings contained in the joint inquiry report No. 1943/G&M dated 04.03.2025 (Annexure-6), specifically investigating how the local committee recorded absolute air dispersion compliance over an industrial unit that they explicitly admitted was completely sealed and non-operational during their visit.

¶20

8. PASS ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTIONS that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case”.

¶21

The applicant has summarized the factual background of the case in

¶22

the list of dates and events which is reproduced as under:-

¶23

“LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

¶24

29.11.1995: The Government of Odisha publishes the final Record of Rights (Khatiyan Patta) for Khata No. 1552, Mouza Humma, explicitly classifying the parent property as "Sutra Gharabari" (Residential Use) carrying an express "Non-Transferable" restriction.

¶25

17.05.2012: Respondent No. 1 (SPCB) issues a conditional Consent to Operate under Memo No. 1548/CON2225/2011-12 to M/s Laxminarayan Cashew Processing Unit allowing a production ceiling of 120 MT/Annum.

¶26

01.04.2019: The statutory validity of the conditional Consent to Operate officially expires, and the unit fails to obtain any valid renewal or extension.

¶27

04.12.2020: Respondent No. 3 moves an online renewal application (No. 3236075) through the OCMMS portal, which is flagged as incomplete due to missing compliance and audit data.

¶28

14.11.2022: SPCB formally Rejects Application No. 3236075 on its central database. The industry ignores the rejection and continues operating its wood-fired ovens illegally.

¶29

¶30

18.12.2022: The Applicant, Manoranjan Jena, files Case No. 2935/2022 before the Hon'ble Odisha Human Rights Commission seeking relief from toxic smoke and public nuisance.

¶31

05.09.2023: SPCB conducts a field inspection of the operational unit, recording standard-exceeding air pollution and untreated wastewater discharge.

¶32

13.03.2024: The SPCB Berhampur issues its internal scientific inquiry report confirming severe emissions, an inadequate stack, and illegal water discharge, followed by a delayed Show Cause Notice.

¶33

02.09.2024: SPCB Berhampur issues Direction Order No. 3606, commanding the industry not to operate its boilers, which the factory completely defies.

¶34

17.09.2024: Respondent No. 3 submits a secondary dynamic application (No. 5879778) for operating consent.

¶35

05.12.2024: The Hon'ble OHRC issues an enforcement order observing that the unit has been running for years after the expiration of its consent, directing the Collector, Ganjam to close and seal the factory immediately.

¶36

19.12.2024: Under direct order from the District Magistrate in compliance with the OHRC mandate, an administrative enforcement team physically executes a joint sealing and locks down the factory doors and boilers at 5:05 PM.

¶37

04.02.2025: The Hon'ble Orissa High Court in W.P.(C) No. 264 of 2025 explicitly refuses to pass any order to permit the reopening of the factory, confirming operations are completely barred without a valid CTO. The Court appoints the Tahasildar, Chatrapur as a strict judicial Receiver solely to supervise the removal of "perishable commodities".

¶38

04.03.2025: The Sub-Collector of Chatrapur issues a biased Joint Enquiry Report under Letter No. 1943/G&M based on a field visit on 06.02.2025, admitting the plant was entirely sealed and non-operational, yet fabricating environmental compliance findings regarding adequate chimney gas dispersion.

¶39

05.05.2025: The SPCB's online database automatically Rejects the factory's secondary Consent Application (No. 5879778) due to its failure to submit layout details or clear pending legal bars.

¶40

07.07.2025: The Public Information Officer of SPCB Berhampur issues an official RTI disclosure (Memo No.

¶41

¶42

3389) directly to the Applicant, confirming that both the 2020 and 2024 consent files were formally rejected.

¶43

27.10.2025: The Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Chatrapur, in IA No. 7/2025 (CS No. 80/2023), issues a Temporary Injunction order restraining asset alienation and creation of third-party interest over the disputed layout plots.

¶44

08.12.2025: Smt. Janaki Das, Sarpanch of the Humma Gram Panchayat, issues an Unconditional Executive Mandate (Ref. No. 167/25-26), demanding the permanent rejection of all permits due to toxic fumes and structural violations inside the residential corridor.

¶45

29.12.2025: Under Letter No. 37032, the Under Secretary to the Government, Forest, Environment & Climate Change Department, commands the SPCB Member Secretary to take immediate appropriate action regarding the Sarpanch's rejection mandate.

¶46

29.01.2026: The Applicant submits a high-level whistleblower RTI application (ID: 22191426007) demanding calculation sheets for the uncollected 2,090 days of environmental damage fines

¶47

03.02.2026: SPCB Regional Office Letter No. 327 confirms that the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), New Delhi has stepped in, demanding an immediate Action Taken Report regarding the illegal operations.

¶48

17.03.2026: The Sr. Law Officer of the SPCB Head Office signs Note Sheet No. 3519, admitting that the Board has failed to assess environmental compensation simply because no specific court order has explicitly forced them to do so.

¶49

08.04.2026: The Hon'ble Orissa High Court disposes of Writ Petition W.P.(C) No. 264 of 2025, directing the SPCB to decide on the dead 2020 application (No. 3236075) within 10 days strictly in accordance with law, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶50

24.04.2026 (The Day of Institutional Fraud): In a highly collusive, single-day administrative move, the Regional Officer of SPCB Berhampur simultaneously issues a preconstruction "Consent to Establish" amendment (No. 1665) AND grants the fresh Consent to Operate under substituted Application No. 5879778. The SPCB overrides all pending system rejections and zoning bars without any ground physical validation.

¶51

¶52

12.05.2026: Equipped with the freshly manufactured permits, the factory owner makes a personal appearance before the Hon'ble OHRC seeking an order to unseal. The Commission declines to issue any direct open-lock mandate, explicitly specifying that its past closure orders do not stand as an impediment only if the unit fulfills all operating criteria and no other legal impediment is there.

¶53

02.06.2026: (The Execution of Unsealing Mandate): Respondent No. 2 (The Collector, Ganjam), completely failing to consider the environmental and zoning records on file, and acting without imposing any mandatory Environmental Compensation fines under the "Polluter Pays" doctrine, issues an unsealing directive solely on the basis of a scientifically fabricated Joint Enquiry Report, thereby breaking the regulatory locks. 26.06.2026: The Applicant obtains the certified Record of Rights proving that the subject plots remain recorded strictly as "Gharabari (Residential Land) and files this comprehensive Original Application before the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal to protect his residential zone.”

¶54

The applicant has submitted that the Odisha State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB) completely failed to calculate or levy mandatory Environmental Compensation penalties for the extended period of unauthorized operation. The applicant has further submitted that to bypass environmental enforcement, a series of collusive actions were executed, including an anomalous pre-construction “Consent to Establish” (CTE) amendment issued on 24.04.2026 to a 14-year-old active operating plant. On that very same day the OSPCB rushed out a fresh substituted Consent to Operate by misrepresenting a timeline directive issued by the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in W.P. (C) No. 264 of 2025. The permissions were granted without verifying ground compliance data while the plant was entirely sealed and in direct violation of active civil court temporary injunctions against asset alienation, residential land classification records and explicit rejection mandates from the local Gram Panchayat. The Collector completely failed to consider the environmental

¶55

¶56

and joining records on files and granted clearances and broke physical locks over plots recorded as “Gharabari”.

¶57

We have heard the applicant in person and gone through the material on record.

¶58

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.

¶59

However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that the averments made in the application require physical verification of the factual position by OPSCB which is also under statutory obligations to take prompt remedial action in case of environmental violations on the basis of such physical verification of the factual position.

¶60

Accordingly, OSPCB is directed to treat the O.A. as complaint/representation made to it and look into the grievances of the applicant, associate the applicant and representative of the concerned project proponents, verify the factual position and in case of environmental violations, take appropriate punitive, prohibitive, rehabilitative remedial action 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 principles of natural justice.

¶61

Action taken report may be submitted by OSPCB within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the Registrar of this Tribunal at Kolkata.

¶62

The Registrar of this Tribunal at Kolkata will be at liberty to place the matter before the Bench by registering Miscellaneous Application in

¶63

¶64

Disposed of Cases if report as directed above is not submitted within the specified period and if on submission of report further orders are considered to be necessary for due implementation of the order passed by this Tribunal.

¶65

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

¶66

A copy of this order may be sent to the Member Secretary, OSPCB

¶67

by email for requisite compliance.

¶68

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶69

Ishwar Singh, EM

¶70

July 16^th , 2026 Original Application No.159/2026/EZ P

¶71

Manoranjan Jena v. Orissa State Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoranjan Jena v. Orissa State Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gobinda Dhar vs Department of Environment

News Item Titled Mumbai Lost Over 21000 Trees in 6 Years to Make Way for Metro Road Projects Appearing in the Indian Express Dated 26.03.2024 vs Central Pollution Control Board

Dharampal vs State of Haryana

Jatinder Singh and Ors. vs Modulus Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.

Siddharth Singh Rajpoot vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Dushyant Rohta vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Chidipi Nakula Suresh vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Local Residents Muchibazar Bidhan Nagar Road Area vs State of West Bengal

Gobinda Dhar vs Department of Environment

1. Haripada Manna S/O Late Paresh Chandra Manna Aged About 48YEARS vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Additional Chief Secretary Forest Environment and Climate Change Department

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 6/2026 in Original Application No. 51/2023 of Chinmaya Dash So Damodar Das Aged 42 Years vs State of Odisha Represented through Addl Cheif Secretary of Department of Forest Enviornment and Climate Change

Local Residents Muchibazar Bidhan Nagar Road Area vs State of West Bengal

Subir Bauri vs State of West Bengal

Sk Nizamuddin vs State of West Bengal