CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has quashed an order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), eastern zone bench, Kolkata, which had directed recovery of environmental compensation from a construction company engaged in railway track and bridge works for the East Coast Railway.
A single judge bench of Justice SK Panigrahi held that the NGT’s order dated May 2, 2025 was vitiated by serious procedural irregularities and a clear breach of the principles of natural justice.
While the NGT had directed recovery by the competent authority without endorsing the computation, Justice Panigrahi held that such directions, based on a flawed process, could not be sustained. It also noted that the ‘polluter pays’ principle must have a legal basis and a nexus to actual harm.
The petitioner company had been awarded the railway work in 2022. Subsequently, certain persons describing themselves as social workers and local villagers approached the NGT alleging illegal extraction of minor minerals such as earth and morrum by the company from government land in Tangi-Choudwar tehsil of Cuttack district.
In the NGT proceedings, several state authorities including the State Pollution Control Board, collector Cuttack, Revenue department and Forest department were impleaded for alleged inaction. The NGT constituted a joint committee to inspect the site and recommend penalty, environmental compensation and remedial measures.
The committee inspected the site on December 18, 2023 and noted excavation and water-filled pits, recording that the depth and quantity could not be fully ascertained at that time. Environmental compensation of `1.20 crore was recommended on the basis of a subsequent report prepared by the mining officer.
Justice Panigrahi noted that the petitioner was neither impleaded in the NGT proceedings nor given notice of the joint inspection or an opportunity to contest the committee’s findings. Relying on settled law, the Judge observed that the procedure violated the rule of audi alteram partem (hearing the other side) and that an adjudicatory body cannot rubber-stamp a committee report.