Dillip Kumar Samantaray vs State Of Odisha - Environmental Damage

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 1, Cited by 0 ] ### National Green Tribunal

Sri Dillip Kumar Samantaray vs State Of Odisha Represented By Chief ... on 23 March, 2026

Item No.04 Court No.1

             BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
                EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA
            (THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

                  Original Application No.14/2026/EZ
                         (I.A. No.20/2026/EZ)

Dillip Kumar Samantaray Applicant

                                  Versus

State of Odisha & Ors. Respondents

Date of hearing: 23.03.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. ISHWAR SINGH, EXPERT MEMBER

Applicant: Mr. Akhand, Advocate for the applicant (through VC).

Respondents:Mr. Utkarsh Chandra, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 4
(through VC).
Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh, Advocate for respondent no.5 (through VC).
Mr. Ashok Prasad, Advocate for respondent no.7 (through VC).
Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, Senior Advocate with Ms. Mansi Bachani,
Ms. Geetanjali Sanyal and Mr. Anubhav Anand, Advocates for
respondent no.8 (through VC).

                               ORDER 1.      We have heard the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay

for respondent no.8, M/s Vedanta Limited (Alumina Refinery Unit), who

on the previous date had opposed this Original Application on the point

of admissibility alleging that the proceedings in the present case are time-

barred because the alleged breach of overflow of red mud pond/process

water lake happened on 15.09.2024, while the present original

application is being filed in the year 2026. Therefore, the same is much

after 26 months and hence, it should be treated to be as time-barred at

the very outset.

1. On the other hand, on this point, the learned counsel for the

applicant has pointed out that the respondent no.8 has caused enormous 1 environmental damage due to breach and overflow of its red mud/process

water lake on 15.09.2024 which incident led to uncontrolled release of

highly alkaline, toxic red mud-laden wastewater into surrounding

agricultural lands which ultimately flowed into Bansadhara River which

is primary lifeline for tribal and rural communities in Kalahandi and

Rayagada Districts.

1. It is also submitted the inspection conducted by the Odisha State

Pollution Control Board- respondent no.5 confirms the breach of the dyke

wall, failure of containment systems and spread of contaminated runoff.

1. The attention is drawn to the direction issued by the Odisha State

Pollution Control Board under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and

Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 which is annexed at page no.24 of the

paper book, therefore, following observations were made:-

"1. A breach of 15m width in the dyke of PWL occurred at 2.00
AM on the night of 15.09.2024,

1. About 4 lakh cum of runoff water was released due to the
   breach of dyke of Process Water Lake which holds runoff water
   (caustic water having pH 10 to 12) from Red Mud facility,

2. The released runoff water from Process Water Lake (PWL) due
   to the duke breach was spread over the about 20-30 acres of
   land (mix of barren and agricultural land) and finally falls to
   river Banshadhara river, which is about 900m away from the
   PWL,

3. The construction material of dyke i.e. big size stone and stone
   aggregates are carried away upto 50 m,

4. The blacktopping in some portion of the public road adjacent to
   PWL was affected."
   2 5. Having drawn attention to the said, it is submitted that since

thereafter, no further action has been taken by the State Pollution

Control Board and cause of action is still persisting and hence, he

pleaded that the case would be covered under the continuous cause of

action which is being disputed by the learned counsel for respondent

no.8.

1. But at this stage, we deem it appropriate to admit this application

with liberty to be granted to respondent no.8 to file a full-fledged reply

thereon, for consideration of the issue of limitation on merits

subsequently.

1. From the side of respondent no.1, Chief Secretary, Govt. of Odisha,

respondent no.2, Additional Chief Secretary, Forest, Environment and

Climate Change Department, Govt. of Odisha, respondent no.3, Collector

& District Magistrate, Kalahandi and respondent no.4, Collector &

District Magistrate, Raygada, Mr. Utkarsh Chandra, learned counsel has

put in appearance and has received notice. Therefore, we direct them to

file reply within four weeks.

1. From the side of respondent no.5, Odisha State Pollution Control

Board, Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh, learned counsel has put in appearance and

has received notice. We direct him to file reply within four weeks.

1. From the side of respondent no.7, Central Pollution Control Board,

Mr. Ashok Prasad, learned counsel has put in appearance has received

notice. We direct him to file reply within four weeks.

1. Therefore, we direct the Registry to issue notice to respondent no.6,

State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Odisha, returnable

within four weeks.

3

1. Put up this matter for next consideration on 15.05.2026.

.........................................
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

                                                      ..............................

Ishwar Singh, EM
March 23rd, 2026
Original Application No.14/2026/EZ
(I.A. No.20/2026/EZ)
MN 4