Allowed

Lakhyajyoti Gogoi v. Moefcc

NGT12 Aug 2026IA No. 12/2026 in Appeal No. 2/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The NGT allowed the appellant's application for condonation of 58 days delay in filing an appeal challenging an Environmental Clearance. The court applied a liberal approach under Section 16 of the NGT Act, accepting reasons related to lack of publicity and counsel engagement as sufficient cause.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 58 days delay allowed; appeal admitted for hearing.

Lakhyajyoti Gogoi vs Moefcc — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.13

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA (THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

¶3

Appeal No.02/2026/EZ (I.A. No.12/2026/EZ)

¶4

Lakhyajyoti Gogoi Appellant

Versus

MoEF&CC & Ors.

Respondents

Date of hearing: 12.08.2026

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER HON’BLE MR. ISHWAR SINGH, EXPERT MEMBER

¶10

Appellant: Mr. Vikram Rajkhowa, Advocate for the appellant (through VC).

¶11

Respondents:Mr. Apurba Ghosh, Advocate for respondent no.1 (through VC).

¶12

Mr. Ashok Prasad, Advocate for respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 (through VC). Ms. Malabika Roy Dey, Advocate for respondent no.5 (through VC). Mr. Adarsh Tripathi, Advocate for respondent no.6 (through VC).

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The appellant has filed present appeal under Section 18 (1) read with Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 challenging Environmental Clearance (EC) dated 23.08.2025 granted by respondent no. 1- Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change in favour of respondent no. 7- M/s. SJVN Limited in respect of Etalin Hydro Electric Project (3097 MW) in an area of 1175.03 Ha located at Village Adapowa, Aguli, Emuli etc., Sub-District Etalin and Anini, District of Upper Dibang Valley, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶15

Along with the Appeal, the appellant has filed I.A. No. 12/2026/EZ for condonation of delay of 58 days in filing of the appeal.

¶16

The Appellant has sought condonation of delay on the ground that

¶17

there was no willful delay on his part and that the inadvertent delay was

¶18

¶19

caused due to the lack of proper publicity of the EC dated 23.08.2025 granted to Etalin HEP, and in seeking the appropriate forum/remedy, as well as engaging Advocates practicing before this Tribunal and in preparation of the case. The Appellant has submitted that he being from a frontier town in Tinsukia District of Assam came to know about the aforesaid news (about grant of EC) from his contacts in Arunachal Pradesh around 20.09.2025, thereafter collected materials and contacted Advocates in his home district, Tinsukia, regarding taking appropriate legal recourse to challenge the aforesaid EC. He was advised to contact Advocates practicing before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court; however, due to the Durga Puja vacation of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court from 27.09.2025 to 12.10.2025, the referred Advocates practicing on the environment side before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court were not available. Subsequent to reopening of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court on 13.10.2025, the appellant contacted Advocates from the said Hon'ble Court, who advised him that the best course to challenge the EC to Etalin HEP would be to approach the National Green Tribunal. As there are not many Advocates from Assam practicing before this Tribunal, it took some more time to connect with the present Advocate-on-Record based in Guwahati about 500 kms from the hometown of the appellant and engage him on 06.11.2025. Some more time was expended in arranging the voluminous documents and going through the same by the engaged Learned Counsel and thereafter the appeal was preferred by the Appellant. The Appellant has, accordingly, sought condonation of delay of around 58 days in preferring the accompanying appeal. 4. Vide order dated 10.02.2026 notice of the I.A. No.12/2026/EZ seeking condonation of delay in filing of the Appeal was ordered to be issued to the respondents requiring them to file their replies to the same.

¶20

¶21

Pursuant thereto, reply dated 23.03.2026 was filed by respondent no.6 and rejoinder dated 29.06.2026 to the reply filed by respondent no.6 was filed by the appellant.

¶22

On 02.07.2026 Learned counsel for respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 and learned Counsel for respondent no. 5 submitted that they have no objection if the application for condonation of delay in filing of the Appeal is allowed.

¶23

Vide order dated 02.07.2026 respondent no.1 was granted time for filing of reply to the application for condonation of delay in filing of the Appeal. However, reply has not been filed by respondent no.1. 8. In its reply, Respondent No. 6 has submitted that the application seeking condonation of delay is wholly misconceived, legally untenable and devoid of merit, as the Appellant has failed to disclose any sufficient cause, much less a bona fide and cogent explanation, warranting exercise of discretion by this Tribunal under the proviso to Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Respondent No. 6 has further submitted that the statutory scheme under Section 16 of the NGT Act requires an appeal to be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of the impugned order, with a limited discretion to condone delay for a further period not exceeding 60 days, only upon showing sufficient cause. Respondent No. 6 has submitted that the entire case of the Appellant rests upon an unsubstantiated plea that he had no knowledge of the Environmental Clearance dated 23.08.2025 and that the same was not brought into the public domain. The Environmental Clearance itself records statutory conditions mandating its publication and dissemination in the public domain, including publication in newspapers and availability on official portals, and that, in the absence of any material to the contrary, there is a presumption of due compliance

¶24

¶25

with statutory requirements. The Appellant’s plea that he came to know about the Environmental Clearance only on 20.09.2025 through an unspecified “contact” is vague, ambiguous and wholly unreliable, as neither the identity of such contact nor any affidavit or material has been placed on record to substantiate the assertion. The Appellant has failed to explain why such information could not have been accessed earlier through publicly available sources or why he failed to exercise due diligence. Respondent No. 6 has further submitted that the plea regarding non-availability of Advocates during the Durga Puja vacation is wholly untenable and unsupported by any material, as the Appellant has failed to disclose the names of the Advocates allegedly contacted, the dates on which such attempts were made, or any correspondence evidencing such efforts. The Appellant’s own pleadings demonstrate that he engaged counsel only on 06.11.2025, which, according to Respondent No. 6, establishes that the delay is attributable to his own inaction and lack of diligence.

¶26

Respondent No. 6 has further submitted that the Appellant’s explanation regarding confusion as to the appropriate forum is misconceived, as ignorance of law or lack of clarity regarding the appropriate forum cannot constitute sufficient cause. The Appellant was expected to act with reasonable diligence and seek appropriate legal advice within the prescribed period and cannot take advantage of his own lack of awareness or indecision to defeat the statutory limitation. The reliance placed by the Appellant on judicial precedent is misplaced, as delay may be condoned only where the explanation is genuine, substantiated and supported by material on record, whereas the Appellant has not produced any document to corroborate his assertions regarding delay in obtaining legal advice, non-availability of counsel or

¶27

¶28

difficulty in accessing information. The Appellant has failed to demonstrate any element of due diligence and that there is no material to show that he made any effort to verify the status of the project, access publicly available information or promptly seek legal recourse. Respondent No. 6 has further submitted that the plea that there was no “wilful delay” is merely a bald assertion without any supporting foundation and that the Appellant has failed to establish sufficient cause preventing him from acting within the prescribed time.

¶29

Respondent No. 6 has accordingly submitted that the explanation furnished by the Appellant is vague, contradictory, unsupported by evidence and devoid of bona fides, and that the application is merely an attempt to overcome the bar of limitation by putting forth afterthought justifications. Respondent no.6 has accordingly prayed that the application seeking condonation of delay be dismissed with costs and, consequently, the accompanying appeal be also dismissed. 11. The Appellant in his rejoinder dated 29.06.2026 to the reply dated 23.03.2026 filed by respondent no.6 reiterating the explanation for delay given in I.A. No. 12/2026/EZ.

¶30

We have heard submissions made by learned counsels for the parties and gone through the relevant record carefully. 13. In their submissions learned counsels for the appellant and the respondents have reiterated factual/legal submissions made in the above said I.A. and reply to the same. 14. In support of his arguments learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sridevi Datla Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2021) 5 SCC 321 . 15. In support of his arguments learned Counsel for respondent no.6 has relied on the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶31

¶32

Basawaraj & Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 that the expression “sufficient cause” must receive a strict construction and that the party seeking condonation must satisfactorily explain the delay for each day.

¶33

Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 permits filing of appeal by aggrieved person within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order or decision or direction or determination is communicated to him. Proviso to Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 empowers this Tribunal to allow appeal to be filed under the abovesaid Section within a further period not exceeding sixty days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period.

¶34

In Collector (LA) vs. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107, Hon’ble Supreme

¶35

Court, while considering question of condonation of delay for sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963, held that the legislature has conferred the power to condone delay in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression 'sufficient cause' employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. In that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court advocated adoption of liberal approach by realizing the following factors:

¶36

“(1) Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

¶37

(2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

¶38

(3) 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.

¶39

¶40

(4) When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.

¶41

(5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.

¶42

(6) It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.”

¶43

18. In Maniben Devraj Shah vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan

¶44

Mumbai, 2012 5 SCC 157 Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

¶45

“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 appellant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the appellant 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.”

¶46

19. In Dyaneshwar Vishnu Shedge vs. Union of India & Ors. 2012

¶47

SCC Online NGT 80 where the appeal was not filed within 30 days of the impugned order and prayer was made for permitting extension permissible upto 60 days, this Tribunal while considering the question of condonation of delay in presenting the appeal, noticed the rival claims and emphasized the need of adoption of liberal approach by this Tribunal. The relevant part of the order is reproduced below:-

¶48

“11. As far as the explanation given by the Appellant that he approached and discussed with the local villagers and other project affected persons sought their approval and consent and thereafter travelled to Pune consulted an Advocate and on his advice downloaded the impugned order from the website of the MoEF and then proceeded to Delhi, contacted the Advocate and got the Appeal filed. A litigant is legitimately entitled to put forth in proceeding like this and plead and explain the delay.

¶49

12. Respondent No. 3 repudiating the stand taken by the Appellant tried to convince this Tribunal that the Appellant took active part in the movement initiated to stop project implementation. Since long he had contacts with the social activists who are opposing the project, thus the plea of ignorance taken by the Appellant is only an afterthought and is neither bonafide nor justified.

¶50

¶51

13. On consideration of the submissions advanced interse by the parties, we feel in a case like the present one, where the Environmental impact of the project on local population in terms of their environmental harm, has to be assessed, the approach of this Tribunal, especially set up for the said purpose, should be liberal and not "hyper- technical".

¶52

14. The nature of the disputes, as would be evident, from the aims and objective of the NGT Act, this Tribunal is expected to adjudicate upon, is not really a lis between the litigant parties and or adversary litigation. The jurisdiction of this Tribunal is necessarily a wider one whereby the impact of the decision granting EC vis-a-vis the effect thereof on the local community or environment in general and ecology has to be considered. The Tribunal is expected to adopt a broad and liberal approach rather than narrow and cribbed one.

¶53

15. In view of the discussions made above, the delay being less than ninety days, this Tribunal after appreciating the pleadings and documents referred is satisfied that there was sufficient reasons and that deliberate latches cannot be attributed to the Appellant. The law as on date mandates that the EC granted under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 can only be challenged before this Tribunal, we condone the delay and allow the petition for condonation of delay. Parties to bear their own cost.”

¶54

In the present case, the Appellant has stated that there was no willful delay on his part and that the delay in filing the appeal was caused due to the lack of knowledge of the Environmental Clearance dated 23.08.2025, the time taken in obtaining copies of the relevant documents, seeking information regarding the appropriate forum and remedy, engaging the Counsel and in preparation of the appeal. The Appellant has explained the circumstances leading to the delay in filing the appeal. The explanation furnished by the Appellant, particularly with regard to his lack of knowledge of the publication of the Environmental Clearance, the time taken in obtaining legal advice, the intervening court vacation, determining the appropriate forum, engaging counsel and preparation of the appeal, cannot be said to be lacking in bona fides.

¶55

The appellant has explained each day’s delay in filing of the Appeal by giving detailed reasons for the same in the application for condonation of delay. The appellant is not shown to be negligent and the cause for delay is not shown to lack bona fides. In view of the observations made by

¶56

¶57

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector (LA) vs. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107 and Maniben Devraj Shah vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, 2012 5 SCC 157 and by this Tribunal in Dyaneshwar Vishnu Shedge vs. Union of India & Ors. 2012 SCC Online NGT 80 the words “sufficient cause” have to be liberally construed. When so liberally construed, the facts and circumstances mentioned and the reasons assigned in I.A. No. 12/2026/EZ by the appellant for delay constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of that expression in the proviso to Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

¶58

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the period of thirty days and the appellant deserves to be allowed to file the appeal within a further period of 58 days which period does not exceed the permissible period of sixty days which can be allowed under the proviso to Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 for filing of the appeal.

¶59

In the facts and circumstances of the case, observations in

¶60

Basawaraj & Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 relied upon by learned Counsel for the respondent no.6 are not of any help to the respondent no.6.

¶61

Accordingly, I.A. No.12/2026/EZ for condonation of delay of 58 days in filing of the appeal is allowed and the appellant is allowed to file the appeal within a further period of 58 days under the proviso to Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 which permits further period of 60 days for filing of the appeal.

¶62

In view of the grounds of challenge mentioned in the memo of appeal, first right of appeal conferred by the National Green Tribunal Act,

¶63

¶64

2010 and there being no ground to reject the appeal at the stage of admission, the appeal is admitted for hearing.

¶65

Replies to the appeal may be filed by the respondents at least one day before the next date of hearing fixed.

¶66

List on 15.10.2026 for further hearing.

¶67

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶68

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶69

Ishwar Singh, EM

¶70

August 12^th , 2026 Appeal No.02/2026/EZ (I.A. No.12/2026/EZ) P

¶71

Lakhyajyoti Gogoi v. Moefcc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhyajyoti Gogoi v. Moefcc

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

Ramesh B. Mundley vs State of Gujarat through Secretary Industries and Mines Dept

M/S. Commercial Stone Supplying Co. vs State of Gujarat through Secretary Industries and Mines Dept

Yusuf Mohamad Godad vs State of Gujarat through Secretary Industries and Mines Dept

Mohammad Yusuf Abdulla Mala vs State of Gujarat through Secretary Industries and Mines Dept

Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Ankur Sharma vs State of West Bengal through the Chief Secretary

Naval Kishore Bhargav vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Kazi Pear Ahmed vs State of West Bengal

Kumar Sanjay vs State of Jharkhand

Sri Dillip Kumar Samantaray vs State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Ajay Kant Rohit vs State of Bihar

1. Alaka Mishra W/O- Harekrushna Mishra Aged About 75 Years vs 1. State of Odisha Additional Chief Secretary Revenue and Disaster Management Department Govt. of Odisha

Paribesh O Aranya Sankalp through Milan Rakshit vs State of West Bangal