1 CGHC010280012026 2026:CGHC:37502 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4009 of 2026 1 - Lochan Prasad Yadav S/o Ram Yadav Aged About 46 Years R/o Village- Mudpar, Tehsil- Patan, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Environment, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Durg District Durg (C.G.) 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Patan, District Durg (C.G.) 4 - Regional Officer Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board, District Durg (C.G.) 5 - Mining Officer District Durg (C.G.) 6 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Patan, District Durg (C.G.) 7 - Gram Panchayat Patora Through Its Secretary, Village- Patora, Tahsil- Patan, District- Durg (C.G.) 8 - Dileep Kumar S/o Bhiman Das Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Patora, Tahsil- Patan, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Abhyudhay Tripathi, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Advocate. For Respondent No. 8 : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 21/08/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “(i) Direct the respondent authorities to inquire into the legality of the proposed Aggregate (Gitti) Crushing Plant being established over Survey No. 192/4, Village Patora, Tahsil Patan, District Durg. (ii) Direct the respondent authorities to produce and verify all permissions, approvals, environmental clearances, No Objection Certificates and other statutory compliances relating to the proposed crushing plant. (iii) Restrain respondent No. 8 from establishing or operating the proposed Aggregate (Gitti) Crushing Plant without obtaining all mandatory statutory permissions and environmental clearances. (iv) Pass any other order or direction deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been filed against the proposed establishment of an Aggregate (Gitti) Crushing Plant over land bearing Survey No. 192/4, admeasuring 0.2700 Hectare, situated at Village Patora, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, owned by respondent No. 8. It is submitted that the proposed crushing plant is being established without proper disclosure of the requisite statutory 3 permissions, environmental clearances and No Objection Certificates, despite repeated objections raised by the petitioner and other villagers. Learned counsel further submits that the proposed activity is likely to cause dust and particulate pollution, noise pollution and environmental degradation, adversely affecting public health and agricultural activities in the surrounding areas. It is also submitted that the respondent authorities have failed to consider the objections and to verify compliance with the mandatory environmental and other statutory requirements. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, reported in (1996) 5 SCC 647. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the proposed activity, without ensuring due compliance with the requisite safeguards, warrants interference by this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 submits that the present writ petition is premature, as no right of the petitioner has been infringed and, admittedly, the challenge is against the proposed establishment of the crushing plant. It is submitted that, vide letter dated 02.06.2026, the answering respondent had already cautioned M/s Baba Crusher through its proprietor that no unit shall be established without obtaining the requisite statutory approvals, failing which appropriate action would be taken in accordance with law. An inspection was also conducted by the concerned authorities, during which no new crushing unit was 4 found to have been established at the site. It is further submitted that respondent No. 8 has submitted the requisite No Objection Certificates and, as on date, no new plant has been established. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a resident of Village Mudpar and not Village Patora, where the proposed plant is situated, and has failed to establish any locus to maintain the present petition, particularly when the same is not in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation. It is also submitted that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 in respect of the environmental grievances raised by him. Therefore, the present petition, being premature and otherwise not maintainable, deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sridevi Datla vs. Union of India and others, (2021) 5 SCC 321. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record. 5. Section 14 (1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 reads as under:- “14. Tribunal to settle disputes. (1) The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule 1.” 5 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sridevi Datla vs. Union of India and others, (2021) 5 SCC 321, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “30. This Court is of the opinion that there is merit in the appellant's argument. The respondents, especially, the project applicant, had urged that the appellant is an interested party, and cannot be called a public- spirited citizen, because she had opposed acquisition of land for the airport and therefore, was able to access legal advice at the High Court stage. There is, in our opinion, nothing in the NGT Act which excludes parties who would be directly affected by a project, that has environmental repercussions, from accessing the tribunal (NGT). Likewise, characterising the nature of legal advice that can be accessed for challenging land acquisition, as similar to a challenge to environmental clearance which involves application of mind to technical issues in a detailed manner, would be unfair and simplistic. Scientific or technical support — apart from expert professional legal advice is necessary, if NGT were to be approached. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that given the mandate of the NGT Act, the exercise of discretion, as was done in this case, to reject the appeal by dismissing the application for condonation 6 of delay, on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown, was erroneous and based on a narrow reading of the law. An appeal to NGT in such matters is no ordinary matter; it has the potential of irrevocably changing the environment with the possibility of likely injury. Application of judicial mind by an independent tribunal in such cases, at the first appellate stage, is almost a necessity.” 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the grievance raised by the petitioner and the statutory scheme of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, particularly Section 14(1) thereof, and further keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sridevi Datla v. Union of India and Others, (2021) 5 SCC 321, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy before respondent No. 4 in respect of the environmental grievance raised by him. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioner is relegated to approach respondent No. 4 by way of an appropriate application/representation, which shall be considered and decided strictly in accordance with law and in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Needless to say, respondent No. 4 shall consider the grievance of the petitioner objectively and take an appropriate decision after examining all relevant aspects of the matter. 7 9. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat