CUTTACK: The National Green Tribunal’s (NGT) East Zone Bench has imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on the additional director general of forest (wildlife)-cum-member secretary of the National Board for Wildlife for failing to file a reply to a petition concerning the delay in notifying the eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) around Similipal Tiger Reserve.
The bench comprising Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi and expert members A Senthil Vel and Ishwar Singh, directed the senior official to deposit the amount with the registrar of the NGT’s Eastern Zone Bench in Kolkata within one month. It also granted the official another opportunity to file a reply within the same period and directed him to appear personally or through video-conferencing at the next hearing, along with relevant records.
The order uploaded on the tribunal’s website on October 17, came in response to the petition filed by Santanu Kumar Bhukta, representing a Talcher-based NGO, seeking intervention against the alleged failure of authorities to finalise the ESZ notification and regulate activities around the reserve.
Bhukta pointed out that the Centre issued a draft notification on January 29, 2019, proposing an ESZ for the Similipal-Hadgarh landscape. However, the final notification has remained pending for more than six years.
He alleged large-scale unregulated construction, tree felling, borewell drilling and plastic waste dumping within the proposed ESZ surrounding the tiger reserve. Advocates Sankar Prasad Pani and Ashutosh Padhy represented the petitioner.
The tribunal had issued notices to the Odisha government and central environmental authorities on April 30, 2026. While the other respondents filed counter-affidavits, the response of the ADG was not filed.
While directing to list the matter next on December 9, the bench said, “In the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider personal appearance of the Additional Director General of Forest (Wildlife) cum Member Secretary, National Board for Wildlife to be essential for assisting this Tribunal in just and proper adjudication of the questions involved in the case.”
The bench noted that despite due service of notice, the wildlife official had neither filed a reply nor appeared before it personally or through an authorised representative. The non-appearance had caused unnecessary adjournment and delayed the resolution of environmental issues, it said, adding that exemplary costs were warranted.
Emphasising the constitutional and statutory responsibilities of the Centre and state governments to protect the environment and enforce environmental laws, the tribunal said authorities must submit replies with relevant details and ensure representation through duly authorised officers or counsel.
