Saroj Kumar Sahoo vs State Of Odisha And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 3027 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                               W.P(C) No.16758 of 2022
                               (Through hybrid mode)

            Saroj Kumar Sahoo                     ....                   Petitioner

                                              Mr. Gyaneswar Satpathy, Advocate
                                          -versus-

            State of Odisha and others            ....             Opposite Parties

                                                 Mr. Sailaja Nanda Das, Advocate
                                                         (Addl. Standing Counsel)

                      CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                     ORDER

Order No.                           08.07.2022
    01.     1.      Mr. Satpathy, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner

and submits, his client operates a stone crusher. Impugned are memos

dated 21st September, 2020 and 30th September, 2020, respectively

issued by the District Magistrate and the Sub-Collector. He draws

attention to communication dated 31st May, 2021 issued by the State,

recommending restriction of Eco Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of Similipala

Hadagarh Wildlife Sanctuary to 1 km from the reference points 5 to 8,

as mentioned in the Table-B in Annexure-IB of the draft notification.

He then refers to judgment dated 3rd June, 2022 of the Supreme

Court in, inter alia, I.A. no.1000 of 2003 in Writ Petition (Civil)

no.202 of 1995 ( In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union

// 2 //

of India and others) paragraph 44 for directions made thereby. He

submits, the State having already recommended, the ESZ must be

limited to 1 km from the reference points to the boundary of the

sanctuary. His client's crusher is beyond that distance.

2. Mr. Das, learned advocate, Addl. Standing Counsel appears on

behalf of State and submits, against impugned memos petitioner had

moved this Court earlier by W.P.(C) no.27854 of 2020 (petitioner's

own case), disposed of by co-ordinate Bench on 16th October, 2020.

Mr. Satpathy submits, the direction was for consideration of

representation, after which his client's unit was sealed by the

administration.

3. The facts are as above. Court does not find necessity of

requiring State to file counter. Instead, it will duly issue instructions

for hearing and disposal of the writ petition on adjourned date or

thereafter.

4. List on 15th July, 2022.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge Prasant