M/S FERRO ALLOYS CORPORATION LTD, BHADRAK vs UNION OF INDIA

Court
Odisha High Court

WP(C)/24189/2025
ODHC010614872025
2026:OHC:215
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.24189 of 2025
CNR No- ODHC010614872025
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).



M/S Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd.,
Bhadrak & Anr.
…. Petitioner (s)
-versus-

Union of India & Ors. …. Opposite Party (s)




Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode :

For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija, Senior Advocate
along with associates
Mr. V. Mohapatra, Advocate.

For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Biswajit Moaharana,
Senior Panel Counsel for O.P No.1
Mr. Susanta Kumar Mishra,
Advocate for O.P Nos.2 & 3).




CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI



DATE OF HEARING:-13.08.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-09.10.2026


Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioners, by filing this Writ Petition, have challenged the
Minutes of the 74th Meeting of the State Expert Appraisal Committee
("SEAC") dated 17.6.2025 recommending rejection of the Petitioners'
application for Environmental Clearance ("EC") proposal for the
Katasahi Mining Block, and the consequential letter dated 21.7.2025
Signature Not Verified
Page 1

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 16-Oct-2026 21:21:14

issued by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority
("SEIAA") rejecting the Petitioners' EC application, solely on the basis
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court's judgment passed in Vanashakti v.
1
Union of India hereinafter also referred to as ‘Vanashakti-I’ . The
Petitioners also assail the earlier Minutes of SEAC dated 20.8.2022 and
the Terms of Reference dated 03.11.2022 issued by SEIAA, to the extent
that they have wrongly treated the Petitioners' application as a
"violation case".
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
2. The Petitioner No.1, M/s. Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. (FACOR), was
granted a mining lease on 1.8.1998 in respect of an area measuring
13.674 hectares situated in Katasahi village, Keonjhar District, Odisha.
The lease, which was originally granted for a period of 20 years, was
subsequently extended under Section 8A of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and presently stands
extended up to 31.07.2048.

3. FACOR had applied for Environmental Clearance (EC) in respect of the
mine on 7.8.2008. Terms of Reference were issued on 7.7.2009. The
proposal was thereafter considered for enhancement of the proposed
production from 6,000 TPA to 20,000 TPA and certain further
information was sought by the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee
(SEAC). The application did not culminate in grant of Environmental

1

2025 INSC 718
Signature Not Verified
Page 2

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 16-Oct-2026 21:21:14

Clearance. The mining operations were subsequently stopped for want
of Environmental Clearance.
4. In the meantime, proceedings were initiated against the erstwhile
management in relation to mining operations undertaken without
Environmental Clearance. A criminal case under Section 15 of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 was instituted before the learned
J.M.F.C., Barbil. In proceedings arising out of Common Cause v. Union
2
of India , compensation was also demanded under Section 21(5) of the
MMDR Act, 1957. The demand raised by the State authorities on
2.9.2017 was in respect of the earlier period of mining operations.

5. FACOR thereafter underwent Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The proceedings
commenced upon admission of the application by the National
Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata on 6.7.2017. A Resolution Plan
submitted by M/s. Sterlite Power Transmission Ltd. was approved by
the National Company Law Tribunal, Cuttack on 30.1.2020. Pursuant
to the approved Resolution Plan, the Board of Directors of FACOR was
reconstituted and the management and control of the company passed
to the new management with effect from 21.9.2020.
6. The Resolution Plan contained provisions concerning liabilities and
proceedings relating to the period preceding the Plan Effective Date,
including proceedings arising out of non-compliance with applicable
laws and proceedings relating to the mining leases held by the

2

(2017) 9 SCC 499
Signature Not Verified
Page 3

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 16-Oct-2026 21:21:14

company. The petitioner relies upon these provisions, as well as
Sections 31 and 32A of the IBC, in support of its case concerning the
effect of the approved Resolution Plan.
7. The compensation demanded under Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act
was quantified by the State authorities at Rs.10,41,47,899/-. FACOR
states that, notwithstanding its contention that the liability stood
extinguished under the approved Resolution Plan, it deposited a sum
of Rs.11,20,23,192/- on 22.3.2021 under protest.
8. On 9.3.2022, after the change in management, FACOR submitted an
application for Environmental Clearance in respect of the Katasahi
mine. The proposal was for future mining operations. The proposal
contemplated production of 28,119 TPA of ROM manganese ore, with
total excavation of 68,289 TPA, from the 13.674 hectare lease area. The
application was uploaded on the Parivesh portal on 10.3.2022.
9. The proposal was placed before SEAC on 13.4.2022. SEAC sought
clarification on, inter alia , the fact that the mine had gone into
production during 2010-11 and 2011-12 without Environmental
Clearance and had thereafter been closed for want of Environmental
Clearance and Forest Clearance. SEAC specifically called upon FACOR
to explain why the proposal should not be treated as a violation case.
Other environmental and land-use issues were also raised, including
the presence of a primary school within the lease area, a school adjacent
to the lease area, a cremation ground and grazing land.

10. FACOR responded on 6.6.2022. In that communication, it referred to
the violations as having been committed by the erstwhile management
Signature Not Verified
Page 4

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 16-Oct-2026 21:21:14

and to the subsequent completion of the CIRP and change in
management. The response also referred to the payment of
Rs.11,20,23,192/- towards compensation under Section 21(5) of the
MMDR Act.
11.
On 20.8.2022, SEAC recommended that the proposal be considered as a
violation category case and recommended issuance of Terms of
Reference. On 3.11.2022, SEIAA issued the Terms of Reference,
expressly stating that the proposal was to be considered as a violation
category project on the ground that the erstwhile management had
operated the mine without a valid Environmental Clearance. The
Terms of Reference contemplated an EIA study, public hearing and a
remediation plan and natural and community resource augmentation
plan for the violation period.

12. The petitioner thereafter proceeded with the environmental appraisal.
The public hearing was eventually conducted on 16.8.2024. The
proceedings of the public hearing, the Final EIA Report, Environment
Management Plan, mining plan and other documents were thereafter
submitted/uploaded for processing of the Environmental Clearance
proposal.
13. While the proposal was being processed, proceedings were pending
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vanashakti-I . By order dated
2.1.2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stayed the operation of the Office
Memorandum dated 7.7.2021. In consequence, SEAC recommended
return of FACOR's proposal and, on 2.11.2024, the proposal was
returned on the ground that grant of Environmental Clearance or
Signature Not Verified
Page 5

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 16-Oct-2026 21:21:14

Terms of Reference in violation category cases could not then be
considered.
14. On 19.2.2025, during the pendency of the proceedings before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, directions were issued that applications
seeking ex-post facto clearances on the basis of the 2021 Office
Memorandum be processed, though the final order granting approval
or clearance was not to be passed. The petitioner thereafter requested
that its proposal be processed. SEAC, on 22.4.2025, sought further
details, including details concerning the violation penalty and damage
assessment.

15. On 16.5.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court pronounced judgment
in Vanashakti-I. The judgment struck down the Notification dated
14.3.2017 and the Office Memorandum dated 7.7.2021, and restrained
the Central Government from issuing circulars, orders, Office
Memoranda or notifications providing for grant of ex-post facto
Environmental Clearance or regularising acts done in contravention of
the EIA Notification, 2006.

16. Following the said judgment, FACOR addressed a communication
dated 20.5.2025 to SEAC. It maintained that the 2021 Office
Memorandum did not apply to its case, reiterated its position regarding
the change in management pursuant to the CIRP and requested that the
application be considered as one for fresh Environmental Clearance for
future mining operations. FACOR also stated that no mining activity
had been carried out after the new management took over.
Signature Not Verified
Page 6

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 16-Oct-2026 21:21:14


17. On 17.6.2025, SEAC recommended return of the proposal in view of the
judgment dated 16.5.2025 in Vanashakti-I . On 21.7.2025, SEIAA rejected
the Environmental Clearance proposal. The rejection referred to the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court striking down the 2017
Notification and the 2021 Office Memorandum. It also recorded that
Stage-I Forest Clearance had not been submitted at that stage.

18. FACOR thereafter submitted a representation dated 18.8.2025 seeking
reconsideration of the decision of SEIAA. The representation did not
result in a decision, and the present writ petition came to be instituted
challenging, inter alia , the SEAC recommendation dated 17.6.2025, the
SEIAA decision dated 21.7.2025 and the earlier decision of SEAC dated
20.8.2022 and Terms of Reference dated 3.11.2022 insofar as the
proposal had been placed in the violation category.

19. During the pendency of the present proceedings, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, on 18.11.2025, allowed the review of the judgment dated
16.5.2025 in Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India
3
(CREDAI) v. Vanashakti , hereinafter also referred to as ‘Vanashakti-II’ ,
and recalled the earlier judgment. The matters were thereafter
considered afresh.
20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court subsequently has recently pronounced
4
judgment on 29.7.2026 in Vanashakti v. Union of India hereinafter
also referred to as ‘Vanashakti-III’ . The judgment reconsidered the
validity of the 2017 Notification and the 2021 Office Memorandum and,

3

2025 INSC 1326
4

2026 INSC 761
Signature Not Verified
Page 7

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 16-Oct-2026 21:21:14

while issuing directions concerning Environmental Clearances already
granted and applications pending consideration, specifically provided
in Paragraph 79(c) that an application dismissed, returned or delisted
solely with reference to the order dated 2.1.2024 and/or the judgment
in Vanashakti-I may be reconsidered by the authority concerned in light
of the observations made in the judgment. Paragraph 80(viii) further
directed that all applications made under the impugned instruments,
whether pending or dismissed solely with reference to the order dated
2.1.2024 and/or Vanashakti-I , shall be dealt with in terms of Paragraph
79.

21. It is also pertinent that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition,
Stage-I Forest Clearance in respect of the project was granted on
1.4.2026 for the forest area involved in the project.

22. The controversy, therefore, now arises in the context of the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 29.7.2026 in Vanashakti-III , which was
pronounced after the impugned decision of SEIAA.
II.
PETITIONERS’ SUBMISSIONS:

23. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the
rejection of the Environmental Clearance proposal cannot be sustained
after the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vanashakti-III . The
proposal had been rejected by SEAC and SEIAA only because of the
judgment in Vanashakti-I . That judgment, however, was subsequently
recalled in review and the matter was finally decided by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court on 29.7.2026.
Signature Not Verified
Page 8

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 16-Oct-2026 21:21:14


24. It was submitted that Vanashakti-III specifically deals with the fate of
applications which had been made under the 2017 Notification or the
2021 Office Memorandum and were thereafter returned, dismissed or
delisted. Paragraph 79(c) permits such applications to be reconsidered
by the authority concerned, particularly in view of the prospective
quashing of the 2021 Office Memorandum. Paragraph 80(viii) directs
that all such applications are to be dealt with in terms of paragraph 79.
According to the petitioners, their application consequently stands
revived and is required to be processed from the stage at which it was
left.

25. Learned counsel further submitted that the objection regarding non-
submission of Stage-I Forest Clearance, which had also found place in
the order of SEIAA, does not survive. It was pointed out that, during
the pendency of the writ petition, Stage-I Forest Clearance was granted
by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change on
01.04.2026 in respect of 8.846 hectares of forest land forming part of the
project.

26. The earlier submission of the petitioners was also referred to. It was
contended that the mining operations without Environmental
Clearance were undertaken by the erstwhile management during 2010-
11 and 2011-12. FACOR thereafter underwent CIRP and was taken over
by the successful resolution applicant. According to the petitioners,
Sections 31 and 32A of the IBC operate to give the corporate debtor,
under the new management, a clean slate in respect of liabilities and
consequences arising from the acts of the erstwhile management.
Signature Not Verified
Page 9

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 16-Oct-2026 21:21:14


27. It was further submitted that the compensation liability arising from
the pre-CIRP violations had itself been dealt with in proceedings before
this Court. It was urged that there is no surviving liability or proceeding
against the petitioner arising from the earlier violations which can
constitute an impediment to consideration of its present EC
application.

28. Learned counsel submitted that the application made in 2022 was for
Environmental Clearance for prospective mining operations. The
petitioner was not seeking permission to continue or regularise mining
operations undertaken without Environmental Clearance in the past.
The application was accordingly required to be considered as a fresh
application and not as an application for ex-post facto clearance.

29. It was contended that the petitioner had initially taken the position that
its application was not a violation case. According to the petitioner, it
was thereafter required by the authorities to proceed under the Office
Memorandum dated 7.7.2021 and did so to avoid further delay in
recommencing the mining operations. The subsequent treatment of the
proposal as a violation case, therefore, could not alter the nature of the
relief actually sought by the petitioner.
30. The petitioners accordingly seeks quashing of the SEAC
recommendation dated 17.6.2025 and the consequential order of SEIAA
dated 21.7.2025, and a direction to SEAC and SEIAA to treat the EC
application as alive and pending and process it from the stage at which
it stood prior to its rejection, in accordance with paragraph 79
Signature Not Verified
Page 10

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 16-Oct-2026 21:21:14

of Vanashakti-III . It was also prayed that the application be disposed of
within a time-bound period.
31. At the hearing, however, the petitioners submitted that, in view of the
subsequent change in the law, their contentions founded on Sections 31
and 32A of the IBC may be left open, with liberty to raise those
contentions in appropriate proceedings.

III. OPPOSITE PARTYS’ SUBMISSIONS:

32. Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, SEIAA
and SEAC, submitted that the proposal of the petitioner was not treated
as a violation case by the authorities without basis. The petitioner had
itself disclosed that mining operations had been undertaken without
Environmental Clearance in the years 2010-11 and 2011-12. When the
proposal was placed before SEAC on 13.4.2022, the petitioner was
specifically asked to explain why the proposal should not be treated as
a violation case. In its reply dated 6.6.2022, the petitioner accepted that
the case fell within the violation guidelines and also disclosed the
payment of Rs.11,20,23,192/- towards compensation under Section
21(5) of the MMDR Act. On that basis, SEAC recommended issuance of
violation ToR and SEIAA issued the ToR dated 03.11.2022 under the
then prevailing framework.
33. It was further submitted that the petitioner thereafter proceeded under
the same framework. It completed the EIA and EMP process and, on
29.3.2025, submitted its application for Environmental Clearance under
the violation category. The material placed before SEAC also recorded
Signature Not Verified
Page 11

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 16-Oct-2026 21:21:14

that the project proponent had undertaken to pay the penalty and carry
out the remedial and community resource augmentation measures
contemplated under the Standard Operating Procedure dated 7.7.2021.
Thus, according to the respondents, the record does not support the
contention that the authorities had unilaterally converted a fresh
application into a violation case.

34. Learned counsel submitted that the decision taken by SEAC on
17.6.2025 and the consequential decision of SEIAA dated 21.7.2025 were
in accordance with the law as it stood at that time. By judgment dated
16.5.2025 in Vanashakti-I the Hon’ble Supreme Court had struck down
the Notification dated 14.3.2017 and the Office Memorandum dated
7.7.2021 and restrained the Central Government from providing for
grant of ex-post facto Environmental Clearance or regularisation of acts
done in contravention of the EIA Notification. In view thereof, the
authorities could not proceed with the petitioner's proposal under the
violation framework.

35. The respondents, however, fairly contend before this Court that, in
terms of paragraph 79(c) read with paragraph 80(viii) of Vanashakti-III ,
applications which had been dismissed, returned or delisted solely on
account of the order dated 2.1.2024 and/or the judgment dated 16.5.2025
may be reconsidered by the concerned authority. The respondents
therefore submitted that the petitioner's application, having been
delisted pursuant to the judgment dated 16.5.2025, can be reconsidered
by the competent authority in accordance with the directions contained
in the subsequent judgment.
Signature Not Verified
Page 12

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 16-Oct-2026 21:21:14


36. In the light of the subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
the respondents submitted that the writ petition need not result in a
direction to grant Environmental Clearance, nor would it be
appropriate for this Court to determine the environmental suitability of
the project. At the highest, the proposal may be permitted to be
reconsidered by the competent authority in accordance with the law
declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and subject to satisfaction of
all statutory requirements. The respondents accordingly submitted that
any further consideration of the petitioner's proposal will remain
within the limits prescribed by the judgment dated 29.7.2026

IV. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:

37. Upon hearing the submissions, the following solitary question arises for
consideration:

A. Whether, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court dated 29.07.2026 in , the
Vanashakti v. Union of India
petitioner's Environmental Clearance proposal may be
reconsidered?

38. The question has to be examined in the context of the three successive
Vanashakti . The first decision
decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
dated 16.5.2025 was the basis on which the petitioner's application
came to be returned. That decision was thereafter recalled on
18.11.2025. The matter was subsequently decided afresh on 29.7.2026.
39. In Vanashakti-I , the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the validity of
the Notification dated 14.3.2017 and the Office Memorandum dated
Signature Not Verified
Page 13

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 16-Oct-2026 21:21:14

7.7.2021, under which projects which had commenced without prior
Environmental Clearance could seek Environmental Clearance upon
compliance with the prescribed requirements. The Court held that the
two instruments were illegal. In paragraph 36, the Court directed:
“ We hold that the 2017 notification and the 2021 OM as
well as all circulars/orders/OMs/notifications issued for
giving effect to these notifications are illegal and are
hereby struck down.”
40. The Hon’ble Apex Court further restrained the Central Government
from issuing any instrument providing for grant of ex post facto
Environmental Clearance or regularisation of acts done in
contravention of the EIA Notification. At the same time, Environmental
Clearances already granted under the two instruments were protected.
41. The consequence of Vanashakti-I was that the mechanism under which
violation cases were being processed was no longer available. The
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change accordingly
circulated the judgment for compliance, and the SEAC, Odisha
recorded that violation proposals already processed and pending at the
SEAC/SEIAA level could be returned to the project proponents.
42. The petitioner's application was one such proposal. The SEAC, in its
meeting dated 17.6.2025, recommended that the proposal be returned
to the petitioner in view of Vanashakti-I , and SEIAA thereafter rejected
the proposal on 21.07.2025. Thus, the rejection in the present case was
not an independent decision on the merits of the petitioner's proposal.
It followed the legal position then prevailing after Vanashakti-I .
Signature Not Verified
Page 14

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 16-Oct-2026 21:21:14


43. Vanashakti-I , however, was subsequently subjected to review.
In Vanashakti-II , the review petition was allowed by a majority of 2:1.
The judgment dated 16.5.2025 was recalled and the writ petitions and
appeal were restored to file. Thus, the very judgment which had formed
the basis of the impugned action in the present case ceased to operate
upon the passing of Vanashakti-II .

44. The matter thereafter came to be finally considered by a three-Judge
Bench, resulting in Vanashakti-III , dated 29.7.2026. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court dealt specifically with the fate of Environmental
Clearances already granted and applications which were pending,
returned or delisted under the 2017 Notification and the 2021 Office
Memorandum.

45. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in paragraph 79, drew a distinction between
applications which remained pending and those which had been
affected by the interim order dated 02.01.2024 or Vanashakti-I .
Paragraph 79(b) directed that pending applications under the 2017
Notification or the 2021 Office Memorandum be taken to their logical
conclusion in accordance with law. Paragraph 79(c) then specifically
provided:
“Any application dismissed, returned or delisted solely with
reference to the stay order dated 02.01.2024 and/or the
judgment in Vanashakti-I may be reconsidered by the
authority concerned”
Signature Not Verified
Page 15

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 16-Oct-2026 21:21:14


46. The Court further directed that such reconsideration be undertaken in
the light of the observations made in Vanashakti-III , particularly the
prospective quashing of the 2021 Office Memorandum.
47. Paragraph 79(d) is also relevant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed
that no fresh application for grant of Environmental Clearance under
the aforesaid instruments shall be entertained. The effect is therefore
not that a project proponent whose application was affected
by Vanashakti-I must start the process all over again. The direction is to
deal with an existing application in accordance with paragraph 79.
48. The position was put beyond doubt in paragraph 80(viii), where the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“All applications for grant of EC made under the impugned
instruments, whether they remain pending or stand
dismissed solely with reference to the stay order dated
02.01.2024 and/or the judgment in Vanashakti-I, shall be
dealt with in terms of the directions in paragraph 79 of this
judgment.”
49. The present case falls for consideration against this sequence. The
petitioner's proposal was processed as a violation case; it was pending
before the authorities when Vanashakti-I was pronounced; the SEAC
thereafter recommended its return on the basis of that judgment; and
SEIAA rejected the proposal on the same basis. The subsequent recall
of Vanashakti-I in Vanashakti-II , followed by the specific directions
in Vanashakti-III concerning applications returned or delisted with
reference to Vanashakti-I , therefore directly bears upon the petitioner's
application.
Signature Not Verified
Page 16

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 16-Oct-2026 21:21:14


50. Significantly, Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 have themselves addressed
the effect of Vanashakti-III in their Argument Memo dated 12.8.2026.
After referring to paragraph 80(viii), they have stated:
“Thus, the application of the Petitioners for EC which was
delisted can be revived and reconsidered by the authority as
per Para 79 (C) of the judgement.”

51. The respondents have thus themselves accepted that the petitioner's
delisted application is capable of being revived and reconsidered under
paragraph 79(c) of Vanashakti-III . Their present stand is therefore not
that the application stands finally extinguished by the order dated
21.07.2025, but that the same can be reconsidered in terms of the
directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

V. CONCLUSION:

52. The application of the Petitioner was returned pursuant to Vanashakti-
I , which was subsequently recalled in Vanashakti-II , and Vanashakti-
III now specifically provides for reconsideration of an application
which has been dismissed, returned or delisted with reference
to Vanashakti-I .

53. The stand taken by Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 in their Argument
Memo also makes the position clear. They have themselves stated that
the petitioner's application “ can be revived and reconsidered by the
authority as per Para 79 (C) ” of Vanashakti-III . There is, therefore, no basis
for the continued rejection of the application on the ground on which it
was rejected on 21.7.2025. Accordingly, the recommendation of SEAC
Signature Not Verified
Page 17

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 16-Oct-2026 21:21:14

dated 17.6.2025 and the consequential communication of SEIAA dated
21.7.2025, insofar as they proceed on the basis of Vanashakti-I are set
aside.
54. Resultantly, the Petitioner will be at liberty to make a fresh
representation to the competent authority to consider its application
which may be dealt with by the competent authority in accordance with
paragraph 79 of Vanashakti-III and the law applicable thereto.
55. Ordered accordingly.
56. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.



(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th

Dated the 9 October, 2026/-
Signature Not Verified
Page 18

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 16-Oct-2026 21:21:14