Allowed

Vipin Kumar Saxena v. Seiaa

NGT23 Feb 2026IA No. 602/2025 in Appeal No. 45/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The NGT restored an appeal against an SEIAA order cancelling Environmental Clearance which was previously dismissed as time-barred by the Tribunal but allowed by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal set aside its own earlier order directing the appeal to be decided on merits.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order dismissing the appeal as time-barred; restored the appeal to decide on merits after hearing both sides.

Vipin Kumar Saxena vs Seiaa — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2026)

¶1

Court No. 1

¶2

Item No. 26

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Appeal No. 45/2025 (IA No 442/2025, IA No 601/2025, IA No 602/2025)

¶5

Vipin Kumar Saxena Appellant(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

¶8

Respondent(s)

¶9

Date of hearing: 23.02.2026

¶10

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

¶11

Appellant: Mr. V.K. Shukla & Mr. Udit Jain, Advs. for Appellant

¶12

Respondents: Ms. Priyanka Swami, Adv. for SEIAA, UP (Through VC) Mr. Akash Vashishtha, Adv. in I.A. 601-602/2025

¶13

ORDER

¶14

In this Appeal filed under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, appellant has challenged the order dated 22.12.2024 passed by SEIAA, UP cancelling the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted to the appellant. Additionally, appellant has also challenged the order dated 15.05.2025 whereby the SEIAA has rejected the application for restoration of the EC.

¶15

This appeal was initially dismissed as barred by time by order dated 24.12.2025 which was subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 469/2026 wherein the Supreme Court while taking note of the delay and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter had allowed the appeal by order dated 05.02.2026 by directing as under:

¶16

“ 1. The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 24.12.2025 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short the 'NGT'), whereby the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation.

¶17

2. The contesting respondent is on caveat.

¶18

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶19

¶20

4. On revisiting the facts, we find that eventually there is a delay of two days only in respect of the order rejecting restoration applications dated 19.12.2024 and 07.01.2025.

¶21

5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it seems to us that the appellant's claim deserves adjudication on the merits.

¶22

6. Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant appeal is allowed; the impugned order dated 24.12.2025 of the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, is set aside and Appeal No.45/2025 is restored to its original number and file with a request to the NGT to decide the same on merits after hearing both sides.

¶23

7. The parties shall be at liberty to raise their respective contentions before the NGT.”

¶24

Learned Counsel appearing for SEIAA, UP submits that she was not heard or noticed when the appeal was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, she does not have a copy of the Civil Appeal and is not aware of the plea taken before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶25

Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that he will supply complete set of papers which were filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to Counsel for respondent no.1-SEIAA, UP within two days.

¶26

I.A. No. 601/2025 has been filed by one Naveen Kumar seeking impleadment in this appeal on the ground that he had filed earlier OA No. 440/2023 wherein the Tribunal had passed the order making observations as against the appellant herein. The said IA has been opposed by the appellant by filing the reply and taking the plea that applicant in IA No. 601/2025 is threatening and blackmailing the appellant. This plea has been denied by the applicant in IA No. 601/2025.

¶27

Be that as it may, apart from the fact that there are motive alleged for filing this IA, we also find that this is an appeal which is to be decided considering the plea and record of the SEIAA, UP which had passed the impugned order. SEIAA, UP is already represented and effectively contesting this appeal. Hence, we do not find any ground to allow IA No.

¶28

¶29

601/2025 which is accordingly rejected. Consequently, IA no.602/2205 which is an application for direction filed by the proposed impleader is also rejected.

¶30

List on 02.04.2026.

¶31

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶32

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶33

February 23, 2026 Appeal No. 45/2025 (IA No 442/2025, IA No 601/2025, IA No 602/2025) JG.

¶34

Vipin Kumar Saxena v. Seiaa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Kumar Saxena v. Seiaa

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

Ms Qua Water Technologies Pvt. Ltd. through Authorized Person Mr Umesh Bhokare vs Maharasthra Pollution Control Board

Abhishek Vikas Gondane vs Seiaa

Abhisht Kusum Gupta vs State of Uttarakhand

Kishan Lal vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Shri Shalton Fernandes vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Mursleen vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Milind Thakre vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Bhom Singh vs Jai Bholenath Resort

Abhisht Kusum Gupta vs State of Uttarakhand

Kishan Lal vs State of Uttar Pradesh

S K Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Residents Welfare Association Village Nizampur Delhi vs Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

Pradeep Norula vs State of Haryana

Vipin Kumar Saxena vs Seiaa