ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.14 SECTION XI-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.11790/2024 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-04-2024 in WA No. 2051/2023 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack]

BIKASH SWAIN Petitioner(s)

VERSUS KRUSHNA CHANDRA KHATUA & ORS. Respondent(s)

(IA No. 120656/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Date : 22-01-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN For Petitioner(s) :

Mr. Bhupendra Pratap Singh, Adv.

Mr. Devendra Kumar Shukla, AOR Mr. Nakul Nirwan, Adv.

Mr. Rishabha Singh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :

Mr. Bharat Swaroop Sharma, Adv.

Ms. Deepinder Kaur, Adv.

Mr. R. Sathish, AOR Mr. Manoranjan Paikaray, AOR Ms. Vinakshi Kadan, Adv.

Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, AOR Mr. Shashwat Panda, Adv.

Mr. Manoranjan Paikaray, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following Signa ture No t Ve rifi ed O R D E R VISHAL ANAND Date: 2025.01.23 Reason:

the impugned order is allowed.

2. The High Court in its impugned order has observed in Para 25 as under:-

“25. In our considered view, the appellant's challenge to the order of the NGT on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice is not tenable in the eye of law. In the present case, the appellant has the statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order passed by the NGT. There was no exceptional circumstance before the learned Single Judge to have entertained the writ petition, there being statutory remedy of appeal. In an intra-Court appeal, we decline to interfere with the impugned decision of the learned Single Judge, which does net suffer from any legal infirmity.”

3. Thus, it appears that the writ petition filed by the petitioner - herein before the High Court was not entertained on the ground that he has an alternative remedy of preferring a Statutory Appeal against the order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) which was impugned before the High Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner – herein would submit that the High Court should have entertained his Writ Petition on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given by the NGT to his client. However, it is a disputed question of fact whether the petitioner - herein was given any opportunity of hearing by the NGT or not.

5. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, upon instructions, from his client submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a review application before the NGT.

6. This Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

7. If the issue of limitation arises, the NGT shall take into consideration that the petitioner first approached the High Court and thereafter this Court.

8. The issue of limitation shall be dealt with accordingly.

9. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(VISHAL ANAND) (POOJA SHARMA)

ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)