The NGT dismissed an appeal seeking quashing of forest clearance for a rail corridor project. The court held the Regional Empowered Committee properly considered alternate routes, found them infeasible, and the issue lost merit due to the project's advanced completion status.
The appeal was dismissed; pending incidental applications were disposed of.
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.
Court No. 1
Item No. 1A
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Appeal No. 188/2018 (IA No 194/2025 & IA No 577/2025)
Sudiep Shrivastava Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of completion of hearing and reserving of order: 19.03.2026
Date of pronouncement of order: 24.04.2026
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER
Appellant: Mr. Sudiep Shrivastava, Appellant in Person
Respondents: Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashwarya Sinha, Mr. Naveen Soni & Mr. Aditya Malhotra, Advocates for R – 3 & 7 Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advs. for MoEF & CC (Through VC) Mr. Gigi. C. George & Ms. Neha Sharma, Advocates for M/o Coal Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath & Mr. Harshit Singh, Advocates for R - 8 (Through VC) Mr. Abhishek Pandey & Mr. Manuraj Singh, Advs. for State of Chhattisgarh
ORDER
1
granted in violation of FCA 1980 and rules framed there under by the MoEF.
2
West Rail Corridor Limited for the construction of East West Rail Corridor from Marwahi forest division to Katghora forest division in Bilaspur and Korba Districts in the State of Chhattisgarh with certain conditions. These orders/approvals were challenged by the Appellant in this appeal.
13. In view of aforesaid submissions made, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient care has been taken to consider all the aspects required while issuing clearances under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the stage-I clearance issued on 26.02.2018, stage-II clearance on 07.06.2018 by MoEF & CC and 04.07.2018 order issued by State of Chhattisgarh, under Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Since the settlement of rights in terms of Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 is not a mandatory requirement while issuing orders for diversion of non-forest purposes under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, no such orders are necessary while issuing orders for diversion of forest land. It has already been stated that as part of the conditions of the clearance the State Government shall complete settlement of rights in terms of Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, if any, on the forest land to be diverted in accordance with the relevant guidelines issued by MoEF &CC.
14. However, we are conscious of the fact that area in question is part of the elephant corridor and, therefore, it is required to be kept in such a state that Elephants are able to move freely. We are also aware of the fact that Elephant is a free ranging animal and it is also a ‘National Heritage Animal’ in our country. Moreover, elephants are frequently subjected to severe man animal conflict situation in several areas. We would, therefore, send this proposal to the National Board for Wildlife in the MoEF&CC for examination so that if necessary, some additional mitigation measures could be imposed for providing free passages for the movement of elephants which would have to be taken up by the project proponent, in addition to what has already been imposed by the National Tiger Conservation Authority.
3
15. With this direction, this Appeal is disposed of. The MA Nos. 1358/2018 & 1359/2018 also stand disposed, with no order as to cost.”
2. Mr. Prashant Bhushan on behalf of the appellant raised a specific point that the corridor commencing from Pendra Road to Gevra Road could have been avoided in view of the alternative route. It is however apparent that this point is not reflected in the judgment of the National Green Tribunal.
3. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has raised a strong objection to the above referred submission of the appellant. He would submit that this plea was taken up for consideration by a full Bench of the National Green Tribunal. Before the full Bench all issues relating to corridor nos. 1, 2 and 3 were raised. Having considered the matter in detail, the full Bench disposed it of by the common judgment and order dated 08.08.2019. It is submitted by Mr. Sinha that this order has attained finality as the same was not challenged by the appellant before this Court.
4. As the submission relating to alternative road is not reflected in the order impugned before us, without disturbing the finding arrived at by the Tribunal, we think it appropriate to remand the matter to the National Green Tribunal to consider and dispose of the said objection. Needless to say, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and it is for the Tribunal to take up, consider and dispose of the appeal on its own merit. The respondents will also be entitled to raise all such pleas that are available to them in law including the issue of maintainability. The Tribunal shall endeavour to dispose of the appeal within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.
5. With these observations, the Civil Appeal is disposed of with a direction that the National Green Tribunal will restore Appeal No. 188 of 2018 to its original number and hear and dispose of the
4
submission of the appellant on the issue of alternative route to the one commencing from Pendra Road to Gevra Road.
6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
5
alignment and the issue is already concluded by the three-member bench order of the Tribunal dated 08.08.2019 and in OA No. 470/2015 in the matter of Sudiep Shrivastava & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors . and other connected matters. He has further submitted that about 95% of the work is already complete.
6
member bench of the Tribunal in the above order. Hence, there is no merit in the preliminary objection raised by the Counsel for the Respondents No. 3 and 7.
26. That the alternative Champa-Bilaspur route has been thoroughly assessed and deemed impractical due to severe congestion at Bilaspur Yard. This yard is a critical railway junction already handling heavy traffic from industrial hubs such as Jharsuguda, Raigarh, and Korba. With the current burden on this section, adding an estimated 60 MTPA of additional coal traffic would cause significant operational bottlenecks, leading to delays and inefficiencies in coal evacuation. The existing infrastructure simply cannot accommodate the increased load without substantial disruptions to existing freight and passenger services.
27. Furthermore, despite ongoing doubling efforts in the BilaspurAnuppur section, this route remains unsuitable due to persistent congestion. Even with proposed flyovers and capacity expansion, the section will continue to face high traffic volumes, making it unviable for efficient coal transportation. The primary objective of the East-West Rail Corridor is to create a dedicated and streamlined coal evacuation route, which the alternative route via Champa-Bilaspur fails to achieve.
28. It is humbly submitted that shifting to an alternative route would have severe implications. The East-West Rail Corridor is a bankfunded project promoted by the Government of Chhattisgarh, IRCON, and SECL. Any change in alignment at this stage would result in significant cost overruns, further delaying the project's completion. The project cost has already escalated from INR 4,970.11 Crore to INR 7,448.52 Crore due to external factors, and altering the alignment would only exacerbate the financial burden on the exchequer.
29. That after careful assessment, the current alignment was selected as the most viable option due to its minimal impact on forest land and significantly lower environmental risks. Any deviation from this approved alignment would necessitate fresh environmental clearances, leading to prolonged delays in project execution and increased regulatory hurdles.”
Appellant is concerned, the record reflects that in the 30th meeting of the
7
REC held on 27.11.2017 in agenda item no. 3, the Committee had expressed the scope to shift the alignment at certain locations to avoid the forest land and had observed as under:
agency to explore the possibility of shifting the alignment at certain locations by observing as under:
i to iv. xxx …………………………….xxx…………………………..xxx
8
alignment will involve larger protected forest area and the project will be
non-feasible. The REC in its 31st meeting had accordingly found as under:
approved the project in the larger interest with certain conditions by observing as follows:
9
User Agency. The User Agency shall ensure compliance of additional conditions, if any recommended by the NTCA, New Delhi and a report on the same shall be submitted along with the compliance of Stage-I approval.”
22. The construction of the railway line from Pendra Road to Gevra Road is progressing steadily as per the approved timeline. As of January 2025, more than 90% of earthwork and structural works have been completed or are in the final stages. The project is being implemented with a focus on efficiency and minimal environmental disruption, ensuring seamless coal transportation from the Korba region.
23. That the work is ongoing across all designated fronts, and details of specific progress milestones have been provided below:
| S. No. |
Items | Unit | Total Scope |
Completed / In Progress |
Progress (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Earthwork in _Formation _ |
Lakh _Cum _ |
378.90 | 346.56 | 91.46% |
| 2 | Blanketing | Cum | _969932 _ | _582291 _ | 60.03% |
| 2 | Minor Bridges & Syphon |
Nos. | 190 | 187 | 98.42% |
| 3 | Major/Imp Girder Bridges |
Nos. | 24 | 24 | 100% |
| 4 | _ROR _ | Nos. | 2 | 2 | 100% |
10
| 5 | Elephant Passes |
Nos. | 20 | 19 | 95% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | _ROB/RUB _ | Nos. | 105 | _104 _ | 99.05% |
| 7 | Station Building |
Nos. | 10 | 10 | 100% |
| 8 | Ballast Supply |
Cum | 967150 | 535926 | 55.41% |
| 9 | Sleepers Supply |
Nos | 531200 | 531200 | 100% |
| 10 | RailSupply | MT | 40100 | _24534 _ | _61.18% _ |
| 11 | Track Linking | Km. | 323 | 57.93 | 17.93% |
24. Furthermore, despite challenges such as land acquisition, environmental clearances, and unforeseen regulatory hurdles, the project remains on track for completion by December 2025. This timeline has been carefully planned, taking into account all necessary approvals, workforce deployment, and logistics management. The stakeholders, including the Government of Chhattisgarh, IRCON, and SECL, are continuously monitoring progress to ensure the timely execution of the corridor.
True copy of the recent photographs of the completed and pending construction area is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A-3.”
11
Prakash Shrivastava, CP
Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM
April 24, 2026 Appeal No. 188/2018 (IA No 194/2025 & IA No 577/2025) dv
12
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal against forest clearance is maintainable despite the appellant not specifically praying for alternative alignment.
Whether the Regional Empowered Committee duly considered the issue of alternate route and deemed the proposed alignment more viable.
Whether the objection regarding environmental impact color of an alternate route remains significant given the project is at an advanced stage of execution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sudiep Shrivastava
Union of India
Prakash Shrivastava
Dr. Afroz Ahmad
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
