p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.37360 of 2025 Dibakar Sa & Ors. …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Byomokesh Sahoo, Adv. -versus- State of Orissa & Ors. …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Millan Kumar, CGC Mr. Rajdeep Pradhan, ASC Mr. Satya Smruti Mohanty, Adv. CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. ORDER 05.01.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioners being the inhabitants of Sundargarh district, have challenged the notice of environment clearance dated 17.12.2025 issued in respect of the Ghogarpalli Coal Mine Project in favour of the Vedanta Ltd. by the Orissa State Pollution Control Board. 3. Heard. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.8/ M/s. Vedanta Ltd. Submits that on the selfsame issue the Petitioner had earlier preferred a Writ Petition vide W.P.(C) No.29883 of 2025 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 10.11.2025 with a direction Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 05-Jan-2026 18:33:14 Signature Not Verified p. 2 for consideration of the representation at the instance of the Petitioner. 5. It is further submitted that pursuant to the said order dated 10.11.2025 the Collector, Sundargarh has passed a detailed order dated 11.12.2025 in Misc. Case No.86 of 2025. He, in the process, prays for dismissal of this Writ Petition. 6. Considering the above submission and since the representation at the instance of the Petitioner on the selfsame issue has already been considered pursuant to the earlier order passed in the above noted Writ Petition and a detailed order on the issue involved in this matter has already been passed in the above noted Misc. Case, this Court is of the view that this Writ Petition is not maintainable as the Petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition with the selfsame prayer as has already been made in the above noted Writ Petition. However, considering the request of learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court makes it clear that if the Petitioners so desire, they may prefer a fresh Writ Petition challenging the order passed in the above noted Misc. Case. 7. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Ayaskanta Designation: Personal Assistant