Disposed

Manas Panigrahy S/O: Narayan Panigrahy Aged About 28 Years v. 1. State Pollution Control Board Odisha Represented through ItS Member Secretary

NGT16 Feb 2026Original Application No. 22/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The NGT held that while air pollution was raised, no prior complaint was made to the OSPCB. The Tribunal directed the OSPCB to treat the application as a representation to verify CTO compliance and take remedial action after giving the respondent a hearing.

What did the court decide?

The application was disposed of with a direction to the OSPCB to treat it as a representation, verify CTO compliance regarding air and water pollution, and take action after giving the respondent a he

Manas Panigrahy S/O: Narayan Panigrahy Aged About 28… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Court No.1

¶2

Item No.01

¶3

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

¶4

Original Application No.22/2026/EZ

¶5

1. Manas Panigrahy

¶6

S/o: Narayan Panigrahy, Aged about 28 years, Business by profession, residing at: Govinda Vihar 5th Lane, Lochapada, PO: Berhampur-760001, PS: Nimakhandi, Dist: Ganjam, Odisha

¶7

…Applicant Versus

¶8

1. State Pollution Control Board Odisha Represented through it’s Member Secretary, Paribesh Bhawan, A/118, Nilakantha Nagar, Unit- 8, Bhubaneswar-751012, Odisha

¶9

2. State of Odisha

¶10

Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Labour & ESI Department Government of Odisha, office at: Kharavela Nagar, Unit III, Bhubaneswar - 751001, Odisha

¶11

3. Regional Officer

¶12

Odisha State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, 2nd floor, New Division Office, IDCO, Berhampur Division, Industrial Estate, Berhampur, Dist: Ganjam-760008, Odisha

¶13

4. The Collector-Cum-District Magistrate Ganjam Collectrate, at/Po: Chatrapur, Pin- 761020, Dist: Ganjam, Odisha

¶14

5. The Tahasildar

¶15

Ganjam Tahasil office, At/Po/ Dist: Ganjam, Pin- 760004, Odisha

¶16

6. The Director

¶17

office of the Directorate of Factories and Boilers, Government of Odisha, Labour & ESI Department, office at: Kharavela Nagar, Unit III, Bhubaneswar -751001, Odisha

¶18

7. Satyabrata Mahapatra

¶19

Aged about 40 years, S/O: Rajkishore Mahapatra, at: Kahakapur,PO: Palanga, PS/ Tahasil/ District: Ganjam, Pin: 761019

¶20

¶21

…Respondents

¶22

Date of hearing: 16.02.2026

¶23

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

¶24

Applicant: Mr. Sankar Prasad Pani, Advocate (physically in PB) and Mr. Ashutosh Padhy, Advocate (through VC) for the applicant.

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The applicant has filed the present application seeking following reliefs:-

¶27

“A. Direct the Member Secretary SPCB to consider the grievances raised in the present OA in a stipulated time.

¶28

B. To declare the Consent to Operate (CTO) obtained by the Respondent No: 7 and granted by the SPCB, Odisha is illegal, arbitrary and not in accordance with law.

¶29

C. Directing the SPCB/ State authorities to close/ seal the alleged Unit of the Projected Proponent i.e. Respondent No: 7 For the ends of Justice.

¶30

D. Directing the SPCB to impose Environmental Compensation against the project Proponent for operating the industry without CTO.

¶31

E. Directing the Member Secretary of SPCB to fix responsibility against the Regional officer of SPCB, Berhampur, Ganjam who has granted CTO to the unregistered factories (Respondent No: 7) according to his will and pleasure.

¶32

And upon causes shown, if any, or upon insufficient causes shown make the said Rule absolute and may pass any appropriate order/orders as deemed just and proper.”

¶33

The applicant has submitted that the respondent no.7 is operating his unit in the name and style of M/s Likha Food Industries in Plot No. 33, Khata No. 22/74 (Ac. 2.343 decimal) situated at Kahakapur, Tehsil and District Ganjam, Odisha for production of Cashew Kernels. The respondent no.7 has been granted Consent to Operate (CTO) by Odisha State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB) dated 05.08.2025. The respondent no.7 has obtained

¶34

¶35

the above said CTO without obtaining registration/permission under the Factories Act, 1948, Boilers Act, 1923, Indian Boiler Regulations, 1950 and State Rules framed thereunder relating to safety, health and welfare of the industrial workers and safe operation of steam boilers and its components and site clearance from the Revenue Department, Government of Odisha. The above said unit exists in close proximity to the village and continues to emit black thick smoke suggesting the air pollution control measures are not in place.

¶36

We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and gone through the material on record.

¶37

In his arguments, learned Counsel for the applicant has reiterated the factual and legal submissions made in the Original Application.

¶38

As per CPCB Categorization of Industries, 2016 and 2025, Cashew Kernel processing unit is categorized to fall under ‘Orange’ category and the same does not require prior environmental clearance. The respondent no.7 was granted CTE dated 23.10.2024 and CTO dated 05.08.2025 by OSPCB and conditions for prevention and control of water and air pollution were imposed by OSPCB in the above said CTE and CTO.

¶39

The applicant has claimed that respondent no.7 has not obtained requisite registration/permission under the Factories Act, 1948, Boilers Act, 1923, Indian Boiler Regulations, 1950 and State Rules framed thereunder relating to safety, health and welfare of the industrial workers and safe operation of steam boilers and its components and site clearance from the Revenue Department, Government of Odisha. In the absence of any specific averments as to adverse environmental impact, compliance with respect to the same does not specifically fall within purview of implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule-I of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

¶40

¶41

However, the applicant has raised the grievance regarding emission of black thick smoke suggesting lack of establishment/operation of air pollution control measures by respondent no.7 which pertains to implementation of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 within jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

¶42

It may be observed here that the applicant did not make any complaint to the OSPCB regarding his grievance of causing of air pollution by respondent no.7. We are of the considered view that in the first instance OSPCB must look into the grievances of the applicant, to verify compliance of CTE/CTO conditions with respect to prevention and control of water and air pollution and take appropriate remedial action in accordance with law after giving opportunity of being heard to the respondent no.7.

¶43

Accordingly, the present Original Application is disposed of with direction to the OSPCB to treat the present Original Application as representation made to OSPCB for looking into the grievances of the applicant, to verify compliance of CTE/CTO conditions with respect to prevention and control of water and air pollution and take appropriate remedial action in accordance with law by giving opportunity of being heard to the respondent no.7.

¶44

A copy of this order may be sent to the Member Secretary, OSPCB by email for requisite compliance.

¶45

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶46

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶47

February 16^th , 2026 Original Application No.22/2026/EZ

¶48

Manas Panigrahy S/O: Narayan Panigrahy Aged About 28 Years v. 1. State Pollution Control Board Odisha Represented through ItS Member Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manas Panigrahy S/O: Narayan Panigrahy Aged About 28 Years v. 1. State Pollution Control Board Odisha Represented through ItS Member Secretary

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

Vasant Krishnaji Vatkar vs Union of India through Secretary

President Municipal Committee Thathri vs

Santosh Ningappa Burje vs the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

M/S Medical Pollution Disposal Committee vs Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Daulat Ram S/O Shri Kuldeep Gena vs State of Rajasthan through District Collector Ajmer

In Re News Item Titled Hyderabad Trees Razed Across 20 Acres at Rajendranagar Students Protest Against Deforestation Appearing in Telangana Today Dated 06.07.2025 vs Telangana Pollution Control Board through Its Member Secretary and Others

K Hariharan vs the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu

News Item Titled Experts Are Alarmed as 350 Turtles Was Ashore Dead Till January 15 Published in the Newspaper the New Indian Express Chennai E Edition Dated 16 01 2025 vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forest

President Municipal Committee Thathri vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 130/2024 in Original Application No. 9/2023 of Bharat Sehrawat vs Dr Umesh Verma

Mamta Sharma vs Gram Sabha

Paribesh Academy vs the State of West Bengal

Ashish Sharma vs

Ashish Sharma vs