Disposed

Vijay Kumar Padalia v. State of Uttarakhand through Its Principal Secretary Department of Forest and Environment

NGT4 Jul 2025IA No. 455/2025 in Original Application No. 279/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal disposed of an application based on the Supreme Court's order in Civil Appeal No. 10989/2018, directing the Tribunal to treat the earlier Original Application as an appeal under Section 16 of the NGT Act, grant liberty to amend, set aside the prior dismissal order, and list the matter jointly.

What did the court decide?

Ontold to treat OA 522/2018 as an appeal under Section 16 NGT Act, amend same, file fresh petition under Section 14, condone delay if required, and dispose of pending applications.

Vijay Kumar Padalia vs State of Uttarakhand through Its… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 01

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 279/2025 (IA Nos. 455/2025, 425/2025 & 424/2025)

¶5

Vijay Kumar Padalia Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Uttarakhand & Ors.

¶8

Respondent(s)

¶9

Date of hearing: 04.07.2025

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶11

Applicant: Ms. Bidya Mohanty, Adv.

¶12

Respondents: Mr. Deepal Bora & Mr. Sai Darshan Patra, Advs. for R - 1 to 5 with Mr. Chandra Sekhar Joshi, DFO, Nainital

¶13

Mr. Dhruv Tamta, Adv. for R - 6 to 8

¶14

Mr. Mukesh Verma & Ms. Vatsala Tripathi, Advs. for R - 10 (Through VC)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Learned counsel for the Applicant has pointed that earlier the Applicant had filed the OA No. 522/2018 raising this very issue which was dismissed as not maintainable by the Tribunal by order dated 24.10.2018 which was subject matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 10989/2018 and the said Appeal was allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme

¶17

Court by order dated 06.05.2025 by observing as follows:-

¶18

“The appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia, had earlier filed Original Application No. 543/2017 for restraining the respondents therein and other State functionaries/authorities from constructing the motor road from NH-87 (now, NH-109) /Dakarauli to Malla Niglat, and for other ancillary reliefs, including a direction to the respondents not to cut, destroy, damage or degrade any tree/forest cover.

¶19

The aforesaid Original Application was permitted to be withdrawn, vide order dated 02.8.2018, with liberty to file a comprehensive application, incorporating subsequent developments. This order was passed in view of the statement made on behalf of the appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia, that he had come to know about the issuance of forest clearance.

¶20

¶21

On 09.08.2018, the appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia, filed what he believed was a comprehensive petition under Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 20101, which was registered as Original Application No. 522/2018.

¶22

The impugned judgment dated 24.10.2018 dismissed the aforesaid Original Application No. 522/2018, not on merits, but on the ground that in the said Original Application, the order granting sanction was challenged and, therefore, the appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia, should have filed an appeal under Section 16 of the NGT Act.

¶23

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that this is a case where there has been miscarriage of justice and technicalities have been overstretched to dismiss and oust the appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia.

¶24

Even accepting that the order granting sanction is appealable, the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, should have permitted the appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia, to either amend the Original Application, as filed, or permitted him to file a fresh appeal under Section 16 of the NGT Act. It is quite apparent that the appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia, had proceeded in terms of and in accord with the language of the order dated 02.08.2018 passed by the NGT itself.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid position, we set aside the impugned judgment dated 24.10.2018 with an order of remand to the NGT. Original Application No. 522/2018 will be treated as an appeal under Section 16 of the NGT Act, preferred by the appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia. We grant liberty to the appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia, to amend the said Original Application to bring it in conformity with the procedural requirements of an appeal, as stipulated. In addition, the appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia, may file a separate petition under Section 14 of the NGT Act. The aforesaid fresh Original Application may be filed within a period of three weeks from today.

¶26

The amended Original Application/ appeal and the fresh Original Application will be taken up for hearing together and by the same Bench.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the issue of limitation may arise in so far as the appeal is concerned. If required and necessary, it will be open to the appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia, to file an application seeking condonation of delay and rely upon Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. We also accept the submission that exclusion of time on account of bona fide proceedings will apply, notwithstanding the upper time limit fixed for condonation of delay. Further, the appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia, will be entitled to raise the plea that the order was never communicated and, therefore, the limitation period would commence only from the date of knowledge.

¶28

The NGT will examine all pleas and contentions raised by the parties in accordance with law. We make no comment either way on such pleas and contentions of the parties or on merits.

¶29

The interim order passed by this Court on 07.12.2018, which was continued thereafter, shall continue to operate for a period of two months from today.

¶30

¶31

The NGT, upon listing of the matters, would be entitled to modify, vacate or confirm the aforesaid interim order dated 07.12.2018, notwithstanding the fact that we have directed the said interim order to be continued for two months.

¶32

In view of the period of time that this litigation has been pending, we request the NGT to take up the matter for hearing expeditiously.

¶33

The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications, including the application for intervention/impleadment, shall stand disposed of.”

¶34

Learned counsel has further pointed out that steps have been taken by the original Applicant for converting the OA No. 522/2018 in Appeal. She has also submitted that in terms of the liberty granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the present OA has been filed.

¶35

Mr. Deepal Bora, Advocate, Mr. Dhruv Tamta, Advocate and Mr. Mukesh Verma, Advocate accept notice on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 to 8 and 10. Let notice be issued to the Respondent No. 9 and 11. The Applicant is directed to serve the Respondent No. 9 and 11 and file affidavit of service atleast one week before the next date of hearing. The Counsel for the Applicant is also directed to supply a copy of the OA along with IA No. 424/2025 an application for condonation of delay and I.A. No. 425/2025 an application for stay to the counsel for the Respondents within one week. The Respondents have an opportunity to file the Reply within four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within three weeks thereafter.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 to 5 on instruction from Mr. Chandra Sekhar Joshi, DFO, Nainital has stated that the Respondents have not done any construction of the road and they will not be doing any construction of the road and will not indulge in felling of the trees without permission of the Tribunal.

¶37

¶38

I.A. No. 455/2025 has been filed by the Applicant for correction of the address of the Respondent No. 2 on due consideration the IA is allowed. Let the correction be made within three days.

¶39

List along with OA No. 522/2018 on 09.10.2025.

¶40

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶41

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶42

July 04, 2025 Original Application No. 279/2025 (IA Nos. 455/2025, 425/2025 & 424/2025) A

¶43

Vijay Kumar Padalia v. State of Uttarakhand through Its Principal Secretary Department of Forest and Environment

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Padalia v. State of Uttarakhand through Its Principal Secretary Department of Forest and Environment

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Singh vs State of Haryana

Mahendra Singh vs State of Haryana

Mahendra Singh vs State of Haryana

Mahendra Singh vs State of Haryana

Residents Welfare Association vs Horticulture Department of Municipal Corporation Delhi West Zone

Residents Welfare Association vs Horticulture Department of Municipal Corporation Delhi West Zone

Residents Welfare Association vs Horticulture Department of Municipal Corporation Delhi West Zone

Residents Welfare Association vs Horticulture Department of Municipal Corporation Delhi West Zone

Mahendra Singh vs State of Haryana

Mahendra Singh vs State of Haryana

Mahendra Singh vs State of Haryana

Rafeek Ahamad vs State of Uttarakhand

Vijay Kumar Padalia vs State of Uttarakhand

Vijay Kumar Padalia vs State of Uttarakhand