The applicant appealed against the rejection of an Environment Clearance by SEIAA, Gujarat. The National Green Tribunal dismissed the application because it was found to be extremely time-barred, as the appeal was filed beyond the 90-day limit despite online proceedings.
Application I.A. No.18/2026 dismissed as being time-barred.
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.
Items No. 03 Pune Bench
BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE [THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION]
I.A.No.18/2026(WZ)
In
Appeal No.55/2026(WZ)
Nilkanth Stone Industries Appellant
Versus
SEIAA & Anr.
Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 04.02.2026
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SUJIT KUMAR BAJPAYEE, EXPERT MEMBER
Appellant: Mr. Shivshankar Swaminathan, Adv. for Appellant
ORDER
1
on 25.09.2025 which is much beyond 90 days. Therefore, it is extremely time-barred.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM
Dr. S.K. Bajpayee, EM
February 04, 2026 I.A.No.18/2026(WZ) In Appeal No.55/2026(WZ) JG.
2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal filed to quash the EC rejection order is permissible given the delay?
Whether the time limit for filing the appeal was complied with considering online communication of proceedings?
Whether the stay order in a related Supreme Court matter benefits the present appellant?
NILKANTH STONE INDUSTRIES
SEIAA & ANR.
DINESH KUMAR SINGH
SUJIT KUMAR BAJPAYEE
As recorded by the court registry
An application for interim relief made while the main matter is pending.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
