IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.2348 of 2024 Sailabala Mishra …. Appellant -versus-

State of Odisha and others …. Respondents Learned advocates appeared in the case:

For Appellant : Mr. S.K. Padhi, Senior Advocate For Respondents : Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate (for opposite party no.2)

Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Senior Advocate (for respondent nos.3 and 4)

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dates of hearing: 6^th and 18^th February, 2025 Date of Judgment: 18^th February, 2025 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARINDAM SINHA, ACJ.

1. The appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 19^th April, 2024 made by the learned single Judge. Mr. Padhi, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of appellant and submits, by impugned judgment not only his client’s writ petition was dismissed but there was purported decision on his client’s right, title and interest in respect of the land, over which her hotel stands.

2. His client applied for consent under provisions in section 25, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The application was made online bearing no.821184 dated 10^th August, 2016. He draws attention sub-section (7) under section 25 to submit, on expiry of period of four months, consent was not expressly granted. There was no refusal earlier. In the circumstances, unconditional consent was deemed to have been there. Sub-section(7)

under section 25 is reproduced below.

“(7) The consent referred to in sub-section (1) shall unless given or refused earlier, be deemed to have been given unconditionally on the expiry of a period of four months of the making of an application in this behalf complete in all respects to the State Board.”

(emphasis supplied)

3. Rival adjacent hotel owner lodged complaints with the human rights authority and obtained directions, used to activate respondent no.2 [State Pollution Control Board (SPCB)]. The authority got into the act and, inter alia, issued letter dated 6^th April, 2023 making requisitions relating to alleged mismatch of ownership identity of his client in respect of the hotel/building. SPCB followed up by revoking the consent on communication dated 23^rd July, 2024. He clarifies, the writ petition was filed challenging said requisition dated 6^th April, 2023. After impugned judgment was made the revocation happened, obviously based on observations and findings made in the judgment. He submits, the consent was unconditionally granted and withdrawal of consent stands provided for in section 27. Provisions in the section were not resorted to in revoking the consent. There being revocation, unconditional consent cannot be disputed. The revocation is illegal and ex facie shows the invoked provision to be, inter alia, section 33A without there being any test report on discharge of effluent by his client. He seeks interference in appeal.

4. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent no.2 (SPCB). He submits, there is no question arisen of unconditional consent granted by his client. The online application made in year, 2016 was not complete. Accordingly requisition dated 6^th April, 2023 was issued. Appellant could not comply with the requisitions and hence there was duly issued the communication dated 23^rd July, 2024.

5. He refers to report on inquiry made on 6^th December, 2022 with regard to Odisha Human Rights Commission Case no.2373 of 2022, filed by respondent nos.3 and 4 (owner of adjacent hotel). He relies on remarks made in the report indicating that his client had taken action to issue show-cause notice for running the hotel without obtaining ‘consent to establish’ (CTE) and ‘consent to operate’ (CTO). Further disclosures were made in the counter to show action taken by his client, culminating in said communicated dated 23^rd July, 2024