The High Court · 2016
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00 W.P.(C) No.29310 of 2022 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227of the Constitution of India, 1950). M/s. Gammon Infrastructure Projects Limited- GECPL (JV) …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha and Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : : Mr. M.K. Mishra, Sr. Adv. Along with Mr. M. Samantray, Adv. Mr. Sidhant Dwibedi, Adv. Mr. S.D. Das, Sr. Adv. Along with Mr. H. Mohanty (for O.P.8), Mr. B. Sekhar, Adv. (for O.Ps.5 & 6), Ms. G. Patra, ASC (for State) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-01.08.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.10.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The present Writ Petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 24.05.2022 of the Collector and District Magistrate, Jajpur and order dated 8.6.2022 of the NHAI requesting the Project Director, NHAI to retain amounts from being released in favour of the present Petitioner due to orders passed in Original Application No. 12/2022/EZ Page 1 of 25 pending before the NGT despite the present Petitioner not being a Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00 party in the said O.A. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The present Petitioner is a Joint Venture Company of two constituent partners, namely, M/s Gammon Infrastructure Projects Limited and M/s Gammon Engineers and Contractors Private Limited. 3. The Petitioner was awarded the contract for rehabilitation and upgradation of the Duburi–Chandikhole section of National Highway- 200 (New NH-53) under NHDP Phase-III on EPC mode. The agreement between the Petitioner and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) was executed on 3.1.2019, with a scheduled completion period of 910 days from the appointed date of 11.2.2020. 4. During execution, the Petitioner claims to have faced severe shortages of minor minerals such as sand, earth, and aggregates, allegedly due to the failure of local authorities to allot quarries. It maintains that despite repeated requests to the Collector, Tahasildar, and NHAI officials, no allotments were made, causing delays in project completion. 5. Due to the unavailability of government-allotted quarries, the Petitioner sourced minor minerals from local villagers and through purchase from authorized local sellers, asserting that these actions complied with central government notifications. It relied upon the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change’s notification dated 15 January 2016, and the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways circular dated 31 August 2017, which permit use of Page 2 of 25
Legal Reasoning
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00 excavated earth from ponds and community works without requiring environmental clearance. The Petitioner further asserts that such excavation aided local communities and contributed to environmental benefits like water conservation and desiltation. It contends that no criminal or environmental violations were found by authorities during this period. 6. Despite these submissions, the Collector, Jajpur, on 24.5.2022, imposed a royalty of Rs.1.72 crore, an equivalent penalty of Rs.1.72 crore, and an environmental compensation of Rs.7.07 crore for alleged unauthorized extraction of soil, stone, dust, and sand. The Petitioner states that it was not given any prior notice or opportunity to present its case before the order was passed. It also maintains that the calculations used by the Collector lack clarity or legal basis. The Petitioner claims that the order was issued in compliance with directions of the NGT, Eastern Zone, in Original Application No. 12 of 2022, even though the Petitioner was never impleaded as a party before the Tribunal. 7. Aggrieved by these actions, the Petitioner approached this Court seeking quashing of the Collector’s letter dated 24 May 2022 and the consequential communication dated 1 August 2022 from NHAI demanding payment. The Petitioner contends that its operations were conducted lawfully and within the scope of government guidelines. It further argues that its use of industrial by-products such as fly ash and slag minimized environmental impact. According to the Petitioner, since it had already paid royalty amounts totalling over ₹2.14 crore and had additional sums withheld for royalty by NHAI, there was no Page 3 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00 outstanding liability. The Petitioner thus prays for intervention by this Court to set aside the impugned orders as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of constitutional and statutory principles. 8. Now that the facts leading up to the instant Petition has been laid
Legal Reasoning
down, this Court shall endeavour to summarise the contentions of the Parties and the broad grounds that have been raised. II. PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS 9. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned action of the Collector, Jajpur, in imposing additional penalty and environmental compensation is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 300A of the Constitution of India. It was contended that the Petitioner was not a party before the National Green Tribunal in O.A. No. 12 of 2022, and hence, any order or direction emanating from those proceedings could not have been enforced against it. The learned Counsel emphasized that the Collector acted without jurisdiction and in gross violation of principles of natural justice, as no notice or opportunity of hearing was ever afforded to the Petitioner prior to passing of the impugned demand. It was further submitted that the order lacks reasoning, calculation, and legal foundation, rendering it unsustainable in law. 10. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Petitioner’s actions were fully protected under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Notification dated 15 January 2016 and the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Circular dated 31 August 2017. Both documents exempt certain community works and road construction activities from environmental clearance and royalty obligations when Page 4 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00 linked to desiltation or water conservation. The Petitioner had lawfully sourced earth and morrum from village ponds and private lands in cooperation with local authorities, and had also paid and deposited requisite royalty as per Rule 58(5) of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016. It was argued that the Collector’s failure to allot quarries, coupled with his subsequent penal action, reflects administrative arbitrariness and unjust enrichment. The Ld. Counsel, therefore, urged that the impugned orders be quashed as unconstitutional, excessive, and devoid of statutory support. III. OPPOSITE PARTYS’ SUBMISSIONS 11. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent, in opposition to the writ petition, submits that the petitioners are essentially aggrieved by the order of the NGT which is appealable under Section 22 of the NGT
Decision
Act and as such, the writ petition is not liable to be entertained in the wake of availability of an effective alternative remedy to the petitioners. He submits that the challenge to the order and consequential demand can be better addressed in appeal before the Apex Court. IV. ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION 12. Having heard the parties and perused the materials available on record, this court here has identified the following solitary issue to be determined: A. Whether the impugned orders warrant any interference in exercise of this Court’s writ jurisdiction? Page 5 of 25 V. ISSUE A: WHETHER THE IMPUGNED ORDERS WARRANT ANY INTERFERENCE IN EXERCISE OF THIS COURT’S WRIT JURISDICTION? 13. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the breach of natural Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00 justice and the admitted fact that the petitioner was not given opportunity of being heard, are good ground for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and to set right the injustice done to the petitioner. He submitted that, even as the other side will point out about the availability of alternative remedy under Section 22 of the NGT Act, 2010 which provides for the Appeal to the, in the facts of the case when there is a clear breach of natural justice, this Court may exercise its powers. 14. In support of the above submission, the decision of the in Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks1, was pressed into service, for what it laid down in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgment. Another decision in HarbanslalSahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation2, was also relied on to highlight that the writ jurisdiction is not invariably excluded even when the alternative remedy is available. 15. For the similar principle, decision of the Apex Court in Radhakishan Industries v. State of H.P.3, which also ruled on the lines of Whirlpool Corpn. (supra), in which it was stated that the power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose including the circumstance arising in the facts of the present case.