p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.10989 of 2025 (PIL) Madhusudan Sahu and others …. Petitioners Mr. Ishwar Mohanty, Advocate -versus- Union of India and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr. S.K. Samantaray, CGC for O.P. No.1 Ms. Aishwarya Dash, ASC for O.P. Nos.2 to 5 Mr. B.P. Das, Advocate for O.P. No.6 Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Amit Patnaik, Advocate along with Mr. Navneet Dadhichi, Advocate for O.P. No.7 CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 29.07.2025 03. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Without delving to go into the nitty-gritty of the allegations contained in the instant Public Interest Litigation (PIL) nor we intend to go as to whether the petitioners can maintain the Public Interest Litigation, we find that the grievance can be meted out if an opportunity is given to the petitioners or any other persons, whom they considered to be underprivileged or unprivileged persons having no resources to approach the Court to ventilate their grievance. 3. The instant Public Interest Litigation was primarily founded upon the assertions that the notice inviting the objections or the comments or the opinion from the general mass was not in p. 2 conformity with the statutory provision as the time limit fixed therein is shorter than the time limit provided in the statute. However, at the time of hearing, it is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that he was not aware of the subsequent amendment having brought which put time limit of fifteen days and not thirty days and, therefore, he does not intend to press the Public Interest Litigation on such score. However, he persisted to continue with the hearing of the instant writ petition as the adequate and/or reasonable opportunity was not provided to the inhabitants of several villages, the names have been disclosed in the Public Interest Litigation. 4. Our attention is drawn to an order of this Court dated 7th April, 2020 passed in W.P.(C) No.1429 of 2022 and batch (Kshirod Kumar Rout and others Vs. State of Odisha and others), wherein in an identical situation, the coordinate Bench of this Court permitted the writ petitioners or any person to raise their grievance before the appropriate authority in the form of a representation and on such representation filed, the authorities shall address the grievance as permissible in law. 5. Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija, learned Senior Counsel appearing for opposite party no.7 submits that if the petitioners feel that the grievance has not been addressed in a proper manner, there is no difficulty that they can approach the appropriate authority and in the event, such approach is made, the authority will set the law into motion and decide the same in accordance with law. 6. The aforesaid submission is echoed by the other opposite parties. Page 3 of 3 7. In view of the above, we, therefore, permit the petitioners or any person to make a representation before the State Pollution Control Board, Odisha-opposite party no.6 within ten days from date. In the event, the representation is made within the time stipulated hereinabove, the State Pollution Control Board, Odisha shall take appropriate steps as permissible in law and the entire exercise shall be completed within three weeks from the date of submission of the representation. 8. With the above observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. All other pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge MRS/Laxmikant Designation: Senior Stenographer