1 2026:CGHC:22505 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2473 of 2026 1 - Navdurga Fuels Pvt. Ltd. Through General Manager Rakesh Prakash Pandey S/o Gajanand Pandey, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Village Saraipali, Gharghoda Road , Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) Having Registered Office At 266, Ravinda Sahani 2nd Floor Kolata West Bengal. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Department Of Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Central Ground Water Authority Through Member Secretary Ministry Of Jal- Shakti Csmrs Camous Olof Palme Marg, Hauz Khas, New Delhi- 110016 3 - The Central Ground Water Authority Through Regional Manager Second Floor L. K. Corporate And Logistic Park Dhumatarai Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Collector Raigarh District Raigarah (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Tarkeshwar Nande, Advocate. For State : Shri Sabyasachi Choubey, GA. For Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Shri Ramakant Mishra, DSGI. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13/05/2026 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the invoice dated 22.07.2025 issued by Respondent No.2 demanding environmental compensation to the tune of Rs.43,33,182/- from the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner - Company is engaged in the business of sponge iron, power and integrated billets and had been granted NOC by AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.05.14 11:40:31 +0530 2 respondent authorities. The petitioner applied 2nd time for renewal of NOC before expiry of the existing NOC on 09.11.2024 and thereafter completed all required formalities and deposited requisite ground water charges amounting to Rs. 21,46,054/- on 09.04.2025. Despite submission of all documents and compliance by the petitioner, the renewal application remained pending due to delay and technical issues in the portal. The petitioner continuously tried to contact the respondent authorities and also submitted representation dated 31.07.2025 requesting renewal of NOC and waiver of environmental compensation. Thereafter, all of a sudden on 22.07.2025, the respondent authorities imposed environmental compensation of Rs. 43,33,182/- upon the petitioner without issuing any prior notice or granting opportunity of hearing. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on Rule 4(3)(a) of The Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 submits that prior to the passing of the Impugned Directions, the respondent had not issued any notice to the petitioner seeking a response of the petitioner to the proposed levying of Environmental Compensation. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 & 3 submits that prior to the issuance of the Impugned Directions, the respondent had carried out repeated inspections and calling upon the petitioner to adhere to the "Guidelines of dust mitigation measures in handling construction material and C&D Wastes". He further submits that it is only on the petitioner's non-compliance of the guidelines that the Impugned Direction was first passed. 5. However, on a specific query with respect to any notice having been issued to the petitioner specifically with respect to levy of Environmental Compensation, 3 the learned counsel for the respondent fairly admits that no such notice was issued. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that immediately on receipt of the Impugned Direction, the petitioner made repeated representations to the respondent seeking recall of levy of the Environment Compensation, however, the respondent merely reiterated its demand without considering such representations. 7. Clearly, the petitioner has not been granted a pre-decisional or a post-decisional hearing on the levy of the Environmental Compensation by the respondent. 8. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of, directing the respondent to consider the contents of the present petition as a representation of the petitioner against the levy of the Environmental Compensation. The respondent shall pass a speaking order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If such order is adverse to the petitioner, the petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law. 9. Till the said representation is decided, respondent authorities shall not take any coercive steps against the petititioner in pursuance of the impugned invoice dated 22.07.2025 (Annexure P/1). However, so far as regular levy in respect of ground water abstraction is concerned, the petitioner is liable for the payment of the same. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash