The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.4869 of 2025 (PIL) Gulab Chandra Sahu …. Petitioner Union of India and others …. Opposite Parties -Versus- Advocates appeared in this case: For Petitioner : Mr. Biswajit Pradhan, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. P. K. Parhi, Deputy Solicitor General of India along with Mr. Chandan Kumar Mohanty, CGC for Union of India, Ms. Aishwarya Dash, Additional Standing Counsel for State,
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Santanu Kumar Sarangi, Senior Advocate for Intervenor CORAM: HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN J U D G M E N T -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing and Judgment : 8th September, 2025 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HARISH TANDON, CJ. 1. The present public interest litigation (PIL) is filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ of mandamus upon the opposite W.P.(C) No.4869 of 2025 Page 1 of 9 parties to maintain permissible water level as approved by the Government of India i.e. 350.60 metre of Full Reservoir Level of Upper Jonk Irrigation Project, Patora and ensure the strict adherence thereto. A further writ of mandamus is sought to initiate an action against the officers of Irrigation Department having involved in the afforestation activities in complete violation of the order passed by the Supreme Court on 19th February, 2008 and the various provisions of the Forest Conservation Act as well as the Wildlife Protection Act. 2. The petitioner has raised a concern on raising the height of the Patora dam under Upper Jonk Irrigation Project, Patora without adhering to the norms, procedures and the provisions of law applicable in this regard. It is alleged that the officials of the Irrigation Department have surreptitiously taken a decision to increase the height of the dam, which invited submerging of a large tract of forest land thereby rendering the wildlife in danger. 3. Since the concern was shown over the preservation and/or protection of the wildlife and also the ecological imbalance that would be brought, orders were passed in the instant PIL directing the State as well as the Union of India to disclose their respective W.P.(C) No.4869 of 2025 Page 2 of 9 stands in this regard. On the last occasion, the order was passed directing the Union of India to disclose whether the application filed by the State seeking further permission is still pending or disposed of. Both the State and the Union of India have come up with the affidavits disclosing the state of affairs concerning not only the raising of the height of the dam but also the action to be taken against the officials of the Irrigation Department as well as the diversion of 142.699 hectares of forest land for the irrigation purposes. The affidavit filed by the Union of India is taken on record. 4. The conjoint reading of the stands taken by the Union of India and the State in their respective affidavits discloses the fact that an identical issue was raised before the apex Court in a Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation (Centre For Environment Law, WWF-I v. Union of India and others being Writ Petition (Civil) No.337 of 1995), wherein interlocutory applications were filed raising the identical issues being I.A. Nos.2 & 92 and 27 of 2008. The apex Court on 6th February, 2008 took up those applications and showed its concern on the construction of an irrigation dam near Sunabeda Wildlife Sanctuary, which invited the submergence of 339.253 hectares of forest land. The Supreme Court also took note W.P.(C) No.4869 of 2025 Page 3 of 9 of the raising of the height by 3.5 metres on the decision taken by the officials of the Irrigation Department, which submerged an additional area of 142.62 hectares of the forest land in water. The apex Court after noticing the aforesaid fact that because of the construction of a dam and raising of its height resulted into submergence of large tract of forest land. It was additionally observed that the action should be taken against those erring officers and they should be prosecuted under the provision of law. However, it was pointed out before the apex Court that to compensate the forest land having submerged because of the construction of an irrigation dam in the Sunabeda Wildlife Sanctuary, the State Government has made available 575 hectares of land to the Forest Department for afforestation and have also paid compensation of Rs.35.14 lakhs. It was further informed to the said Court that the saplings in those land have already been planted so that wildlife is protected and/or wildlife animals are provided the home with all the natural habitats. 4.1. Though the apex Court showed its serious concern on the role of the officials of the Irrigation Department of the State of Odisha but after noticing that all of them have already retired from service, the proposed action, as indicated in the preceding W.P.(C) No.4869 of 2025 Page 4 of 9 paragraphs of the said order, was directed to be dropped and the matter is directed to be closed in this regard. The effect of those observations and the orders can be reasonably deciphered therefrom that so far as the action against the erring officers of the Irrigation Department is concerned, the Supreme Court has directed the authorities not to proceed with the prosecution and the matter may be closed and/or dropped against them as they have attained superannuation by such time. Such being the conscious decision and/or direction passed by the apex Court, one of the prayers in the instant PIL that the action should be initiated against those erring officers is not amenable to be sustained as any mandamus to be passed would run counter to the order and/or decision of the apex Court. Once the Supreme Court has directed the matter to be dropped and the issue to be closed, it is not open to the litigant to resurrect such issue which is set at rest with the order of the Supreme Court. 5. So far as the increase of the height of the dam is concerned and keeping of the requisite amount of water within the said dam, we find from the stand of the State that because of the inflow of huge amount of water during the rainy season, it is not feasible W.P.(C) No.4869 of 2025 Page 5 of 9 and/or practicable that the height of the water within the dam should be maintained at 350.60 metre. 5.1. Having realized such practical difficulties, an approach was made to the Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife prior to the order passed by the apex Court as narrated hereinabove for diversion of 142.699 hectares of land, which submerged in water because of the increase in the height of the dam to be utilized for irrigation purposes, but the Board in its meeting dated 25th August, 2004 rejected such proposal, which is further recorded by the apex Court in the said order dated 6th February, 2008. However, the State took a stand that subsequent to the rejection by the said Board, a further application for reconsideration has already been made on 22nd September 2009, but no conscious decision has been taken thereupon. 5.2. The Union of India have taken a stand that despite best efforts, the said application could not be traced out and, therefore, it raises a serious concern whether such application was ever forwarded to the Board for reconsideration. 5.3. It is really a matter of serious concern that the issue is still pending at different levels of the Government and no conscious W.P.(C) No.4869 of 2025 Page 6 of 9 decision has been taken thereupon. Without delving to go into the dispute whether such application was at all forwarded to the Board or not, as our attention is drawn by Mr. P. K. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) that a “Parivesh portal” has been created. Applications can be uploaded in said portal not only by the concerned State regarding the proposal for diversion of any forest land or afforestation of the land allotted to the Forest Department by the National Board of Wildlife, but also common people. Such applications are registered for verification of their grievances for being considered in the meeting held by the said Board. The said portal is to ensure every aspect of the protection of wildlife and of forest land and, therefore, significant steps have been taken not restricting the access to the said portal to the concerned State but also the citizens of the country in this regard. The suggestion was made by the learned DSGI that if an application is uploaded by the State for reconsideration of the proposal for diversion of 142.699 hectares of land for irrigation purposes and the objection by the petitioner, the Board will take a prompt and immediate decision thereupon and shall not show any complacency in this behalf. 5.4. We further notice that on account of construction of a dam near Sunabeda Wildlife Sanctuary and by increase of the height of W.P.(C) No.4869 of 2025 Page 7 of 9 the said dam, 339.253 and 142.62 hectares of forest land are submerged under the water, to compensate the same, the Government of Odisha have provided 575 hectares of land to the Forest Department over which the saplings have been planted for afforestation together with a compensation of amount of Rs.35.14 lakhs. 5.5. Since the date of the said order, more than one and half
Decision
decades have passed, we direct the Forest Department to ensure the afforestation of those lands to cater to the need of the wildlife and the animals and in the event any further exercise is required, the Forest Department shall ensure strict adherence of the directions passed by the apex Court in the said order. Certain reports from the print news media are relied upon showing the conflict between the wildlife and the human life. The Forest Department is directed to ensure that there is no recurrence of such event and the adequate land is provided to the wildlife with the natural resources as available in the forest land for sustenance of the wildlife and the wild animals in their natural environment. 5.6. Since the prayers made in the instant PIL have already been taken care of and/or decided by the apex Court, we do not intend to W.P.(C) No.4869 of 2025 Page 8 of 9 pass any writ of mandamus in this regard except to the extent that the Forest Department would take all adequate measures and the steps for preservation of the land allotted in lieu of the submerged land and afforestation activities shall be undertaken by them in a regular manner. 6. We further permit the State as well as the petitioner to upload applications in the “Parivesh portal”, the initiative of the Union of India concerning the wildlife and if such approach is made, the Board constituted for taking a decision will attend the aforesaid applications without any unreasonable delay. 7. Though the application for intervention is filed, since it is decided to dispose of the instant PIL, we do not make any observation on the said application except that the intervenor may also approach the authorities through such portal, if so advised. 8. With the above observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of. (M.S. Raman) Judge (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice W.P.(C) No.4869 of 2025 Page 9 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MRUTYUNJAYA PANDA Designation: Secretary, Orissa High Court Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 26-Sep-2025 11:59:39 M. Panda