Appeal filed against SEIAA's rejection of an EIA for a stone quarry project allegedly due to violations of riverbed distance norms
The appeal and I.A. Nos. 819 of 2025 were dismissed due to being time barred under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Item No.3
(Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]
I.A.NO.819 OF 2025 (WZ) IN
APPEAL NO.610 OF 2025 (WZ)
Samir Bapodra (Partner of Tapi Stone Quarry)
…..Applicant/Appellant
Versus
SEIAA, Gujarat & Anr.
….Respondents
Date of hearing: 18.11.2025
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SUJIT KUMAR BAJPAYEE, EXPERT MEMBER
Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, Advocate
ORDER
Page 1 of 3
River bed which is not in compliance with the distance criteria prescribed by the NGT, Principal Bench in the order dated 30.09.2020 in Original Application No.85 of 2019; Sustainable Sand Mine Guideline of MoEF&CC, 2016; Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining issued by the MoEF&CC in January, 2020; MoEF&CC letter dated 16.07.2020; MoEF&CC OM dated 08.08.2019 in accordance with the order dated 04.08.2006 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of T.N.
Godavarman Thiruniulpad Vs. UOI in W.P.(C) No. 202 of 1995 ; Amended CRZ Notification 2011; MoEFCC Notification dated 25.06.2014 etc. Accordingly, after detailed discussion & deliberation and accepting the SEAC’s recommendation, SEIAA has unanimously decided to reject the proposal, as the lease is not complying with the distance criteria, as the same falls within Tapi River bed which is not in compliance with the distance criteria which is violation of the NGT guidelines.
Impact Assessment Authority & Anr.) and vide order dated 02.09.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the order dated 28.07.2025 of this
Page 2 of 3
Tribunal and dismissed the said appeal granting liberty to the individual members to pursue their remedies in accordance with law. He further submits that it is in compliance with this direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appellant has moved the present appeal.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM
Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM
November 18, 2025 I.A.NO.819 OF 2025 (WZ) IN APPEAL NO.610 OF 2025 (WZ) P.Kr
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal is maintainable given the delay in filing?
Does the delay exceed the statutory limit under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010Referred
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
various Indian case law (implied)Referred
Indian case law (implied)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Samir Bapodra
SEIAA, Gujarat
Dinesh Kumar Singh
Sujit Kumar Bajpayee
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal before a tribunal against an order of a statutory authority.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
