Allowed

Rajpal Saini v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

NGT19 Nov 2025IA No. 633/2025 in Appeal No. 62/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench allowed an application for condonation of delay in an appeal against an environmental clearance, holding that the 38-day delay was bonafide and within the condonable limit. The court also allowed an application for exemption from filing certified copies.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 633/2025) allowed; exemption from filing certified copies (I.A. No. 636/2025) allowed subject to submitting legible copies at argument; list for future h

Rajpal Saini vs Ministry of Environment… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 21

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Appeal No. 62/2025 (I.A. Nos. 633/2025, 636/2025 & 728/2025)

Rajpal Saini

Applicant

Versus

MoEF&CC & Ors.

Respondent(s)

Date of hearing: 19.11.2025

¶11

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

¶12

Applicant: Ms. Shibani Ghosh & Ms. Sohini Sanyal, Advocates Respondents: Ms. Suhasini Sen, Ms. Raushni Kaura & Mr. Sahil Ahmed, Advs. for MoEF & CC Mr. Varun Sharma, Ms. Aditi Anup & Mr. Ramesh Chandra, Advs. for R - 3 Mr. Pramod Gupta & Ms. Jessica Khera, Advs. for DPCC (Through VC)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

By this Appeal filed under Section 16(h) read with Section 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act, 2010), the Appellant has challenged the Environmental Clearance (EC) dated 18.06.2025 issued by the MoEF&CC in favour of the Respondent No. 3. There is a delay in filing this Appeal, hence, I.A. No. 633/2025 has been filed by the Appellant in seeking condonation of delay.

¶15

The submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant is that there is a delay of 38 days in filing the Appeal, calculating the limitation from 04.07.2025 when it came to the knowledge to the Appellants, through publication of a news item in the newspaper Dainik Jagran regarding its uploading on the DPCC website. Further submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant is that the Appellants are the project affected villagers

¶16

¶17

and they were not aware of the procedure required to be followed for filing appeal and initially they had submitted a representation, and thereafter they had taken steps for filing the Appeal which took some time and finally the Appeal could be filed with the delay of 38 days.

¶18

Opposing the prayer, learned counsel appearing for the MoEF&CC has submitted that EC was uploaded on Parivesh portal on 18.06.2025 on the date of issuing EC itself, therefore it came to the public domain and the limitation starts from that date. She has further submitted that no proper explanation for the delay has been furnished by the Appellants. Learned counsel appearing for other Respondents have also advanced the same arguments.

¶19

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record it is noticed that the EC was issued on 18.06.2025 and the Appeal has been filed on 10.09.2025. Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010 provides the limitation of 30 days from the date on which the order or direction is communicated and it further provides for condoning the delay of not exceeding 60 days on showing the sufficient cause preventing the Appellant from filing the Appeal within the period of 30 days. Undisputedly, in the present case, the Appeal has been filed within the condonable period of 60 days. Even if we calculate the limitation from 18.06.2025 i.e. date of uploading EC in the Parivesh Portal then also there is a delay only 55 days in filing this Appeal which is less than the condonable period of 60 days. We also find that in the application of condonation of delay the Appellants have furnished sufficient cause which they were prevented from filing the Appeal within time. The Appellants are villagers who are likely to be affected by the projects. Therefore, they have a right to approach the Tribunal. In the application for condonation of delay the Appellants have disclosed that on coming to know about the EC on 04.07.2025, the Appellant had gathered from the Indian Express news that the project

¶20

¶21

proposal was sent back to the Department of Environment Management Services of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi by the Standing Committee for early visit. Further, it has been stated that the Chief Minister’s Office on 17.07.2025 requested the Secretary Urban Development Department, Govt. of Delhi to look into the matter highlighted in the representations sent by the villagers of Sanoth. The letter was forwarded to the Commissioner Municipal Corporation and the Appellants were waiting for the outcome. When the limitation period was approaching they took steps for collecting relevant papers, approaching the Advocate and doing the needful for filing this Appeal. The Appellant being villagers unaware of the process of filing the Appeal had consumed some time in this process also.

¶22

Thus, we find that in the application for condonation sufficient explanation has been furnished for not filing the appeal within the time. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter Sridevi Datla v. Union of India and Ors . reported in 2021 (5) SCC 321 where the NGT had refused to condone the delay in filing the Appeal which was filed on 91^st day since 90^th day was a Sunday. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while condoning the delay and allowing the Appeal has held as under:-

¶23

“xxx xxx xxx

¶24

27. Yet another dimension to the issue was highlighted in Maniben Devraj v. Municipal Corpn. of Brihan Mumbai, where the Court underlined a distinction between a case where the delay is inordinate, and a case where the delay is of few days and that in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor; in the latter case, no such consideration arises. After noticing that a liberal and justice-oriented approach needs to be taken, it was stated that the court, equally should be sensitive to the fact that "the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation apart from the cost." The Court then held that: (SCC pp. 168-69, para 24)

¶25

“24. What colour the expression "sufficient cause" would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may

¶26

¶27

condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay."

¶28

28. It is evident that the term sufficient cause is relative, fact dependent, and has many hues, largely deriving colour from the facts of each case, and the behaviour of the litigant who seeks condonation of delay in approaching the court). However, what can broadly be said to be universally accepted is that in principle, the applicant must display bona fides, should not have been negligent, and the delay occasioned should not be such that condoning it would seriously prejudice the other party.”

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has also placed reliance upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors. reported in 2013 (12) SCC 649 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the earlier judgment and reiterated the principles to be applied while considering the Application for condonation of delay as

¶30

under:-

¶31

“xxx xxx xxx

¶32

21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are:

¶33

21.1. (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, nonpedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.

¶34

21.2. (ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation.

¶35

21.3. (ii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical d considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.

¶36

21.4. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.

¶37

21.5. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.

¶38

21.6. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts

¶39

¶40

are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.

¶41

21.7. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.

¶42

21.8. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.

¶43

21.9. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.

¶44

21.10. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.

¶45

21.11. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation.

¶46

21.12. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinised and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception.

¶47

21.13. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.”

¶48

Hence, considering the reason disclosed in the Application for condonation of delay and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted above, we find that the Appellants were prevented from filing the Appeal within time on account of the bonafide reason and the delay is not unintentional, therefore, a ground for allowing IA No. 633/2025 application for condonation of delay is made out which is accordingly allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶49

I.A. No. 636/2025 has been filed by the Appellant seeking exemption from filing certified copies of impugned order and legible copies of the annexures. On due consideration, the IA is allowed subject to the condition

¶50

¶51

that the Appellant will place on record the legible copies of the documents on which the Appellant wants to rely upon at the time of arguments.

¶52

IA. No. 728/2025 for impleadment of Municipal Corporation Delhi and CPCB has been filed by the Respondent No. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant seek two weeks’ time to file the reply to this IA. The Applicant in I.A. No. 728/2025 is directed to supply a copy of the IA to all the concerned parties.

¶53

The appellant is directed to serve a copy of the Appeal along with annexures to the counsel for the Respondents, if it is not already served. The reply on merit can be filed by the Respondents within four weeks.

¶54

List on 04.02.2026.

¶55

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶56

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶57

November 19, 2025 Appeal No. 62/2025 (I.A. Nos. 633/2025, 636/2025 & 728/2025) A

¶58

Rajpal Saini v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajpal Saini v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

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

Mrs Augusta Dsouza vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Samir Bapodra (Partner of Tapi Stone Quarry) vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Samir Bapodra (Partner of Tapi Stone Quarry) vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Urbashi Jena D/O Haramohan Bala Aged About 55 Years vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Dheeraj Tiwari vs Chhattishgarh Environment Conservation Board

Dheeraj Tiwari vs Chhattishgarh Environment Conservation Board

Minering Aggregates Private Limited vs Sieaa

Dheeraj Tiwari vs Chhattishgarh Environment Conservation Board

Mohd Saleem Son of Haji Abdul Shamim vs Central Pollution Control Board

Himanshu Mittal vs Union of India

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 125/2025 in Original Application No. 426/2025 of Pappu vs Sonpal

Ram Pukar Chauhan vs Central Pollution Control Board

Ramesh Chand vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi

Rajpal Saini vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change