D/L- 103 11/09/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Aritra/sg C.O. 2478 of 2026 Soumen Chakraborty Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Deepnath Roy Chowdhury Mr. K. Samirul Haque Mr. Bhaskar Dwivedi ….for the petitioner Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee Mr. Rudranil Das Mr. Masum Tarafdar Mr. Kazi Ardan Ali Ms. Dipanwita Ganguly ….for the opposite party nos.14 to 16 Mr. Koushik Bhatta Ms. Kritika Jain ….for the opposite party no.19 This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the original applicant in O.A. No.107/2023/EZ and is directed against the orders dated July 3, 2026 and July 18, 2025 both passed by the learned National green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata. By the order dated July 18, 2025 IA: 61/2025/EZ was allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/-. By the order dated July 3, 2026 the learned Tribunal recorded that the costs have been deposited by the respondent no. 14- company and IA: 61/2025/EZ stands allowed in terms of the order dated July 18, 2025. The learned advocate for the petitioner who is the original applicant in OA 107 of 2023 submits that specific allegation was made in the original application against the Directors of the respondent no. 14-company i.e., the respondent nos. 15 & 16. He submits that in view of the nature of allegation made against the respondent nos. 15 & 16, the respondent nos. 15 & 16 could not have been deleted 2 from the array of parties in the original application and substituted by the applicants in IA: 61/2025/EZ. He submits that no effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner who is the original applicant to contest the application being IA: 61/2025/EZ. Per Contra, Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party nos. 14 to 16 submits that the entire allegation in the original application was leveled against the company and there was no personal allegation against the erstwhile Directors of the company was made. He submits that after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties, the learned Tribunal by an order dated July 18, 2025 directed that IA: 61/2025/EZ was allowed subject to payment of cost. He further submits that the cost have been deposited within the stipulated time limit and the learned Tribunal thereafter recorded that the applications stands allowed as the cost has been deposited. In reply, learned advocate for the petitioner placed reliance upon several paragraphs in the original application in support of his contention that specific allegations have been made against the respondent nos. 15 & 16 in the Original Application. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the material placed. It would be relevant to take note of the reliefs claimed in the original application. For better appreciation the reliefs claimed in the original application is extracted hereinafter: “The applicant, therefore, prays that: Under the circumstances the applicant most humbly prays that Your Honour will be kind enough 3 to direct the Respondent Authorities, to the effect as follows:- a) Immediate and appropriate measures be directed to be taken by the Respondent Authorities and each of them, on such terms and direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, to stop the functioning, operation and all activities relating thereto, in any manner, of Respondent no. 14 including the production of Rice, manufacturing of Fly ash Bricks; b) Further enquiry and/or investigation be directed to be forthwith conducted by the appropriate Respondent Authorities as this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper relating to the illegalities and violation of all sorts of environmental norms, standard, requirements including other Statutory requirements, required for carrying of business, and further be directed to submit a report within such time and terms, as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper; c) May appropriate directions be passed for confiscation and destruction of all stocks, materials of rice and to further direct safe disposal in appropriate manner of fly ash mounded thereat and bricks, on such terms as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper; d) Necessary directions for closure of the Rice Mill of Respondent no.14, supplying rice contaminated with fly ash; e) Necessary directions for closure of manufacturing of the fly ash bricks within the same compound of the Respondent no.14; f) Ad interim order in terms of prayers above; g) Such further order or orders direction or directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.” After going through the reliefs claimed, this court finds that the original applicant, who is the petitioner herein, 4 prayed for an order to stop the functioning and operation of all activities of the company, which is the respondent no. 14, including the production of rice, manufacturing of fly ash bricks and for closure of the rice mill of the respondent no. 14 and also to close the manufacturing of fly ash within the compound of the respondent no.4. After going through the scope of the original application, this court finds that the reliefs claimed are primarily directed against the company which was impleaded as respondent no.14. The respondent nos. 15 and 16 were impleaded as directors of the respondent no. 14 company. On 18th of July 2025, the learned Tribunal took up the hearing of IA 61/2025/EZ, wherein, a prayer was made that the names of the respondent nos. 15 and 16 may be deleted and the names of the applicants of IA may be added. The ground for filing of the application is that the respondent nos. 15 and 16 relinquished the office in the month of January 2025. The submission of the learned counsel representing the original applicant being OA No. 107-2023-EZ was noted that he has opposed the prayer of the respondent no. 14 on the ground that the document was served upon the counsel in February 2025 and there is no justification for granting any further time after a passage of five months. After taking note of such submission of the learned counsel for the original applicant, the learned Tribunal observed that there is no reason why the IA should not have been filed immediately in the month of January or 5 latest by February 2025. For belated filing of the application being IA 61/2025/EZ, upon accepting the objection raised by the original applicant, the learned Tribunal observed that the said application shall be allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/-. By the order dated 3rd of July 2026, the learned Tribunal only recorded that by an order dated 18th of July 2025, the IA 61/2025/EZ was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- and such costs have been deposited by the respondent no. 14 company, and the learned Tribunal accordingly held that IA stands allowed in terms of the order dated 18th July 2025. The decision on the application was taken by the order dated 18th July, 2025. Only after ascertaining that costs have been deposited in terms of the order dated 18th July, 2025, the order dated 3rd July, 2026 was passed. The order dated 18th July 2025 was not challenged by the petitioner immediately thereafter. Only after the order dated 3rd July 2026 was passed which, to the mind of this court, is only a consequential order, the petitioner has now approached this Court challenging both the orders dated 18th July 2025 and 3rd July 2026. Though there is no specific period of limitation under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for challenging any order but the fact remains that a person aggrieved by an order has to approach the court without any delay and laches. The order dated 18th July 2025 was not challenged prior to the passing of the consequential order dated 3rd July 2026 and the learned Tribunal, after considering the 6 submission of the original applicant, allowed IA 61/2025/EZ subject to payment of costs on the ground that the erstwhile directors have relinquished the office and the new directors have come in and have allowed the application. The petitioner has not disputed the fact that the respondent Nos. 15 and 16 has either relinquished their office from the respondent no. 14 company or that the applicants in IA 61/2025/EZ have become the directors of the said company. This Court is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal was right in allowing the application being IA no. 61/2025/EZ. For all the reasons as aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders in impugned. This civil revision application, accordingly, stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)