Partly allowed

Municipal Corporation Chandigarh v. Punjab Pollution Control Board

NGT17 Aug 2026IA No. 136/2026 in Appeal No. 11/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal condoned a 57-day delay in filing an appeal against an environmental compensation order, accepting administrative burden as a bona fide reason. It also allowed refiling of the appeal despite portal technicalities and fixed the matter for hearing.

What did the court decide?

I.A. No. 134 of 2026 and I.A. 136 of 2026 seeking condonation of delay are allowed. Matter listed on 05.11.2026.

Municipal Corporation Chandigarh vs Punjab Pollution… — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.19

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Appeal No. 11/2026 ( I.A. No. 134/2026, I.A. No. 136/2026 )

¶5

Municipal Corporation Chandigarh Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Punjab Pollution Control Board & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶8

Date of hearing: 17.08.2026

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶10

Appellant: Mr. Shubham Bhalla & Ms. Ragini Sharma, Advs. for Appellant

¶11

Respondents: Mr. Apar Gupta, Mr. Naman Kumar & Ms. Uzma Sheikh, Adv. for PPCB

¶12

ORDER

¶13

By this Appeal filed under Section 16 read with Section 18 of the NGT Act, 2010, the appellant has challenged the order dated 20.05.2025 passed by the appellate authority dismissing the appeal of the appellant against the order of the PPCB dated 31.05.2024 imposing the EC.

¶14

There is a delay of 57 days in filing the appeal, hence, the appellant has filed I.A. No. 134 of 2026 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant referring to the explanation given in the I.A. has submitted that the impugned order dated 20.05.2025 was dispatched by the Appellate Authority on 22.05.2025, which was subsequently received by the Appellant but thereafter, time was consumed in administrative process and in preparing the documents and

¶16

¶17

filing the appeal in this regard. The explanation has been furnished from paragraph 6 to 11 of the I.A.

¶18

Though this I.A. has been opposed by the counsel for the respondent PPCB but on the perusal of the I.A., we find that the appellant has furnished sufficient explanation for condoning the delay. In terms of the proviso to section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010, the limitation of 30 days has been provided for filing the Appeal and the delay up to 60 days can be condoned by the Tribunal. The delay of 57 days is within the condonable period. The law is settled that such applications for condonation of delay are required to be considered liberally.

¶19

Hence, considering the explanation which is furnished by the appellant in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the view that the delay in filing the appeal was unintentional and for the bona fide reason.

¶20

Accordingly, I.A. No. 134 of 2026 is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶21

There is also a delay in refiling the appeal. Hence, the appellant has filed I.A. No. 136 of 2026 seeking condonation of delay in refiling the appeal.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that on account of the technical glitch in the refiling portal, though earlier attempts were made by the appellant but the refiling could not take place and the appellant could refile the appeal only on 25.11.2025 after curing the defects notified by the Registry.

¶23

¶24

On account of the circumstances disclosed in the I.A., we find that a good ground is made out to allow the prayer for condoning the delay in refiling the appeal.

¶25

Hence, I.A. 136 of 2026 is allowed .

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondent seeks four weeks’ time to file reply on merit.

¶27

Rejoinder, if any, can be filed by the appellant within eight weeks.

¶28

List on 05.11.2026.

¶29

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶30

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶31

August 17, 2026 Appeal No. 11/2026 ( I.A. No. 134/2026, I.A. No. 136/2026 ) AB

¶32

Municipal Corporation Chandigarh v. Punjab Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Municipal Corporation Chandigarh v. Punjab Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Tiwari vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change Government of India

Ajay R Jani vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Gargi Black Stone Quarry Works vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Gargi Black Stone Quarry Works vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Shyam Narayan Maurya vs Appellate Authority /Special Secretary Environment Forest and Climate Change Department Govt. of U.P

Akshay Sunil Jagtap vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Akshay Sunil Jagtap vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Madhu Sudan Palai S/O Late Binayak Palai Aged About 51 Years vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 97/2025 in Original Application No. 603/2023 of Adesh Kumar Yadav vs

M/S Bikanervala Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs Commission for Air Quality Management in Ncr and Adjoining Areas through Member Secretary

M/S Bikanervala Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs Commission for Air Quality Management in Ncr and Adjoining Areas through Member Secretary

M/S Win Waste Management Pvt. Ltd. vs Sangam Mediserve Pvt. Ltd.

Municipal Corporation Chandigarh vs Punjab Pollution Control Board