Dismissed

M/S Rameshwar Stone Supplier v. Seiaa

NGT4 Feb 2026IA No. 19/2026 in Appeal No. 54/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal [Western Zone Bench] dismissed the appellant's appeal as time-barred. The Tribunal held that the appeal filed on 24.09.2025 against the EC rejection order dated 28.03.2025 exceeded the 90-day limitation period, despite the appellant's claim of delayed communication.

What did the court decide?

The application for condonation of delay and the appeal were dismissed.

M/S Rameshwar Stone Supplier vs Seiaa — Pension and Retirement Benefits | NGT (2026)

¶1

Pune Bench

¶2

Item No. 02

¶3

BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE [THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION]

¶4

I.A.No.19/2026(WZ) In Appeal No.54/2026(WZ)

¶5

M/s. Rameshwar Stone Supplier Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

SEIAA & Anr. Respondent(s)

¶8

Date of hearing: 04.02.2026

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SUJIT KUMAR BAJPAYEE, EXPERT MEMBER

¶10

Appellant: Mr. Shivshankar Swaminathan, Adv. for Appellant

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This appeal has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 28.03.2025 passed by SEIAA, Gujarat which is annexed as annexure A-1 beginning from page no.41 of the paper book whereby after reappraisal the EC has been rejected holding that District Geologist confirmed that the lease area falls in Go-Zone but no map with respect to that has been given. Further, it is held that distance criteria suggested by CPCB and accepted by this Tribunal vide orders dated 21.07.2020 and 18.01.2023 in O.A. 304/2019 and by Principal Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 30.09.2020 in O.A. 85/2019 (WZ) are not complied with.

¶13

This appeal has been filed with the delay of 31 days as per the delay condonation application i.e. I.A. No.19/2026. But, we find that the order which has been assailed is of 28.03.2025 while this appeal has been filed

¶14

¶15

on 24.09.2025 which is much beyond 90 days. Therefore, it is extremely time-barred.

¶16

Learned Counsel for the appellant urged that communication of that order was made to him on 25.07.2025, proof of which is annexed at page no.217. But, we are of the view that the entire proceedings of reappraisal of the EC was conducted online through parivesh portal. Therefore, it cannot be said that the online proceedings were not communicated to the Learned Counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, knowledge of the rejection would be attributed to the appellant on the same date i.e. 28.03.2025 when the order was passed.

¶17

Learned Counsel for the appellant has also drawn our attention to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No(s).1503815039/2025, Sureshkumar Sardarbhai Patel Vs. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority & Ors. dated 05.01.2026 wherein the notices have been issued. Having drawn attention to this order, it is urged by him that in identical matters before Hon’ble Supreme Court, notices have been issued and the matter is sub judice before it and listed on the 28^th of this month. But, we are of the view that no benefit can be given to the appellant at this stage on the basis of the said order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶18

We dismiss this application as being time-barred

¶19

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶20

Dr. S.K. Bajpayee, EM

¶21

February 04, 2026 I.A.No.19/2026(WZ) In Appeal No.54/2026(WZ) JG.

¶22

M/S Rameshwar Stone Supplier v. Seiaa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Rameshwar Stone Supplier v. Seiaa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sairam Realtors vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (Maharashtra)

Rohit Singh vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Rohit Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Rohit Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Shri Sandeep Mishra vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Its Principal Secretary

Shri Sandeep Mishra vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Its Principal Secretary

Imran Ali vs Ministry of Environment

Imran Ali vs Ministry of Environment

M/S Sairam Realtors vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (Maharashtra)

M/S Sairam Realtors vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (Maharashtra)

M/S Sairam Realtors vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Sarang Yadwadkar vs Pune Municipal Corporation through Municipal Commissioner

Sarang Yadwadkar vs Pune Municipal Corporation through Municipal Commissioner

Nilkanth Stone Industries vs Seiaa