Disposed

Upendra Kumar Nayak v. Principal Secy. to Govt. of Odisha, Bbsr

Orissa HC3 Jul 2024WP(C)/1475/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding NOC cancellation due to pollution risks, the High Court directed petitioners to file an appeal under the Air and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Acts before the Appellate Authority within one week with a decision deadline of three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioners to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the relevant Acts within one week.

Upendra Kumar Nayak Vs Principal Secy. to Govt. of… — Environment and Pollution | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 1475 of 2024

¶2

Upendra Kumar Nayak & Ors. ..…... Petitioners

¶3

Mr. C.R. Pattnaik, Adv.

¶4

-versus-

¶5

Principal Secretary Department of Forest and Environment Climate Change, Govt. of Odisha & Anr. .…...... Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Mishra, Adv. for O.P.4 Ms. Pami Rath, Sr. Adv. along with associate for O.P.7

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

ORDER

03.07.2024

Order No.

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking direction to quash the No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued in favour of the Opposite Party No.1/Company for establishment of BioScience Company over Gocher land of village Bhagatpur under

¶15

Signature Not VerifiedBahanga Tahasil, District Balasore, having its head office at Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Padhuanpada, Balasore Town for production of Bio-medicine Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 04-Jul-2024 19:09:35 for the purpose of agriculture which is creating unhealthy

¶16

¶17

situation in the area due to filthy smell emitting from the said plant.

¶18

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Opposite No.7 submits that there is an appeal provision under Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and also under Section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The Provision under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 is extracted herein below:

¶19

“31. Appeals.—(1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Board under this Act may, within thirty day from the date on which the order is communicated to him, prefer an appeal to such authority (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Authority) as the State Government may think fit to constitute:

¶20

Provided that the Appellate Authority may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if such authority is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.”

¶21

Further Section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of

¶22

Pollution) Act, 1974 reads as follows:

¶23

“28. Appeals.—(1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Board under section 25, section 26 or section 27 may, within thirty days from the date on which the order is communicated to him, prefer an appeal to such authority (hereinafter referred to as the appellate authority) as the State Government may think fit to constitute:

¶24

Provided that the appellate authority may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if such authority is satisfied Signature Not Verified that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU appeal in time.”

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 04-Jul-2024 19:09:35

¶26

¶27

In view of the aforesaid provisions, the Petitioners are directed to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the appropriate provisions of law within a period of one week from today for redressal of their grievance. In such event, the Appellate Authority shall decide the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months thereafter. If there is any delay in filing the appeal and appropriate petition may be filed for condonation of delay and the same shall be condoned taking a liberal view of the matter, as the matter was pending before this Court.

¶28

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶29

( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)

¶30

Judge

¶31

Murmu

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 04-Jul-2024 19:09:35

Upendra Kumar Nayak v. Principal Secy. to Govt. of Odisha, Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendra Kumar Nayak v. Principal Secy. to Govt. of Odisha, Bbsr

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

M/S Balaji Motors Vs RBI

Panchayat Raj Servic Vs State and Ors.

Gangadhar Khara Vs R.T.O.Rayagada

Dhaneswar Dhir Vs Mgmt.,Nalco

Ghanashyam Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Nrusingha Ch.Mallick Vs State of Odisha