[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Umesh Pradhan And Others vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 15 April, 2026
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) PIL No.6828 of 2026
Umesh Pradhan and others .... Petitioners
Ms. P. Padmavati Rao, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Debashis Tripathy, Addl. Government Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 15.04.2026
01. 1. The petitioners claiming to be the residents of Parmanpur
Gram Panchayat in Jharsuguda District by way of filing
this writ petition in the nature of Public Interest
Litigation beseech issue of writ of mandamus to restrain
the construction of Ash Pond by M/s. Vedanta
Aluminum Company Pvt. Ltd., Jharsuguda (opposite
party No.8) inasmuch as there is absence of 'No
Objection' of the Grama Sabha.
2. Upon receipt of letter dated 08.03.2025 from the
Additional District Magistrate (Revenue), Jharsuguda,
the Block Development Officer, Kolabira (opposite party
No.4) in his letter dated 20.09.2025 instructed the
Sarpanch, Parmanpur Gram Panchayat to conduct Grama
Sabha in Siriapali village for taking opinion/consent of
the villagers for the purpose of "No Objection" to
construct the Ash Pond by the aforesaid company
(opposite party No.8). It is alleged by the petitioner that
though the opposite party No.8 did not send any official
of the company for conduct of the Gram Sabha, it started
constructing Ash Pond near village Siriapali under
Parmanpur Gram Panchayat violating the pollution
norms (as permission of Pollution Control Board is
essential) besides "No Objection" of Grama Sabha.
3. Having heard Ms. P. Padmavati Rao, learned Advocate
representing the petitioners and Mr. Debashis Tripathy,
learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the
opposite party Nos.1 to 4, on perusal of averments and
reading of contents of the writ petition, it emerges that
the petitioner is aggrieved of construction of Ash Pond
by the opposite party No.8-company without permission
of the Pollution Control Board as also the consent of the
Gram Sabha. This Court perceives that such nature of
writ petition does not fall within the domain of this Court
to exercise power under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India. However, on proper analysis of
averments of the writ petition this Court is of the opinion
that the relief(s) claimed in the writ petition would fall
within the domain of consideration by the National Green
Tribunal. The present writ petition is not amenable to
writ jurisdiction in view of decision rendered by this
Court in Sumanta Swain Vrs. State of Odisha, 2026 ILR-
CUT Online 721 and therefore, the petitioners are
required to exhaust the statutory remedy provided under
the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
4. In similar set of fact situation with respect to dumping of
Fly Ash causing environmental pollution, this Court
having undertaken threadbare discussion in the case of
Sumanta Swain (supra), held as follows:
"9. It is no longer res integra that even if a statutory
remedy is provided to the person, the approach to
the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India is not taken away. The power
to issue writs under Article 226 of the Constitution
cannot be taken away nor such forum can be
ousted in exercise of the legislative powers as it is
an integral part of a basic structure even the power
of superintendence over the courts and the
Tribunals provided under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is imbibed into such basic
structure and, therefore, cannot be abridged or
taken away through a legislative fiat. There is no
absolute inhibition in the writ Courts to exercise
such powers but noticing the remedy provided
under the statute, it is discretion of the writ Court
whether to entertain or to relegate the parties to
exhaust such statutory remedy. The broad
principles enshrined in the decision rendered by
the apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation Vrs.
Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, (1998) 8 SCC
1 has to be borne in mind.
10. The Courts have imposed self-restrained in
entertaining the writ petition if the grievance can
be addressed before the specialized fora
constituted under the valid enactment. It is, thus, a
rule of discretion and not of compulsion. In the
instant case, the issue relating to the pollution
inflicted in 'air' and 'water' by indiscriminate use
of the fly ash in making the road (NH-49), can be
conveniently addressed by the National Green
Tribunal and, therefore, we feel it prudent that the
petitioners should be relegated to such statutory
forum. We thus refuse to exercise the discretion in
entertaining the instant writ petition and relegate
the petitioners to the forum as provided under the
NGT Act. It is open to the petitioners to ventilate
the grievance so raised in the writ petition and the
reliefs claimed herein and if such approach is
made, we expect that the NGT will take into
account the serious issues raised in the instant writ
petition and pass appropriate directions as
warranted."
5. In view of the legal prospective being set forth by this
Court in Sumanta Swain (supra), this Court is not
inclined to entertain this writ petition, but feels it
apposite to observe that it is open for the petitioners to
ventilate their grievance as put forth in the writ petition
in accordance with law, if so advised.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
Bichi
Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 17-Apr-2026 14:51:22
