Allowed

Odisha Jana Adhikari Parisada Thr. Its Managing Trustee Bijay Kumar Parida v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

NGT5 Aug 2026IA No. 64/2026 in Appeal No. 13/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal allowed an application for condonation of a two-day technical delay in filing an appeal against an Environmental Clearance granted to JSW Steel Ltd. The court held that lack of bona fide negligence and sufficient explanation justified condonation under Section 16 read with the proviso of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, and subsequently admitted the appeal for hea

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay of two days in filing the appeal allowed; appeal admitted for hearing.

Odisha Jana Adhikari Parisada Thr. Its Managing… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.13

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA

¶3

(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

¶4

Appeal No.13/2026/EZ (I.A. No.64/2026/EZ)

¶5

Odisha Jana Adhikar Parisada

¶6

(through its Managing Trustee, Bijay Kumar Parida) Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Union of India & Ors.

¶9

Respondents

¶10

Date of hearing: 05.08.2026

¶11

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

¶12

Appellant: Mr. Sankar Prasad Pani and Mr. Ashutosh Padhy, Advocates for the appellant (through VC).

¶13

Respondents: None for respondent no.1.

¶14

Ms. Papiya Banerjee Bihani, Advocate for respondent no.2 (through VC).

¶15

Mr. Pinaki Misra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ninad Laud and Ms. Sania Abbasi, Advocates (physically in PB) and Ms. Nandini Khaitan, Ms. Shreya Singh and Mr. Aakash Bajaj, Advocates (physically in EZB) for respondent no.3.

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Appellant has filed present appeal under Section 16 read with Sections 18 and 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010 seeking the setting aside /quashing of the Environmental Clearance (EC) dated 28.02.2026 granted in favour of respondent no.3- M/s JSW Steel Ltd. for the Narayanposhi Iron & Manganese Ore Mining Project in Sundergarh District, Odisha.

¶18

After filing of the Appeal on 01.04.2026, the appellant has filed I.A. No.64/2026/EZ on 14.05.2026 seeking condonation of delay of 02 days in filing of the Appeal.

¶19

The Appellant has sought condonation of delay on the grounds that it had no knowledge of the grant of the impugned Environmental Clearance dated 28.02.2026 and became aware of the same only on

¶20

¶21

29.03.2026 upon verifying the website of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC). It is stated that immediately thereafter, the Appellant approached the learned counsel on 30.03.2026 for filing the present appeal, which was prepared on 31.01.2026 (sic 31.03.2026). However, on account of technical glitches in the e-filing portal of this Tribunal, the appeal could not be filed on the said date and was ultimately e-filed on 01.04.2026, resulting in a delay of two days. It is further pleaded that Condition No. (a) of the General Instructions contained in the impugned Environmental Clearance required the Project Proponent to prominently advertise the grant of Environmental Clearance in at least two local newspapers, one of which was to be in the vernacular language, within seven days, indicating that the project had been accorded Environmental Clearance and furnishing the details of the MoEF&CC/SEIAA website where the same was displayed. According to the Appellant, no such publication was made by the Project Proponent and, consequently, the Appellant had no opportunity to acquire knowledge of the grant of the Environmental Clearance within the prescribed period of limitation. On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the delay of two days in preferring the present appeal, being neither deliberate nor intentional and having occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant, be condoned in the interest of justice.

¶22

Vide order dated 21.05.2026 notice of the appeal was ordered to be issued to the respondents requiring them to file their replies to the Appeal and to I.A. No.64/2026/EZ.

¶23

Counter affidavit dated 31.07.2026 has been filed by respondent no.1 and counter affidavit dated 31.07.2026 has been filed by respondent no.2.

¶24

¶25

However, respondents no.1 and 2 have not filed any reply to I.A. No.64/2026/EZ.

¶26

Reply affidavit dated 01.07.2026 to I.A. No.64/2026/EZ has been filed by respondent no.3.

¶27

In its reply affidavit respondent no.3 has submitted that EC was uploaded on the Parivesh portal on 28.02.2026 the very same day on which it was granted. Respondent no.3 had also published a public notice in two newspapers on 03.03.2026. The period of limitation is to be reckoned from 28.02.2026 the date of uploading of the EC on Parivesh portal.

¶28

Respondent no.3 has further submitted that the appeal was filed on 01.04.2026 but I.A. No. 64/2026/EZ has been filed on 14.05.2026 and there is no explanation as to why the same was not filed along with the appeal particularly when the limitation clause in the appeal expressly referred to filing of an I.A. for condonation of delay. The prayer for condonation of delay may be rejected as lack of knowledge of grant of EC does not constitute sufficient cause for delay in filing of the appeal; no explanation has been given as to why the appeal was not filed within period of limitation of 30 days and appellant has not given an explanation for filing of I.A. seeking condonation of delay after 43 days.

¶29

Respondent no.3 is accordingly prayed that I.A. No. 64/2026/EZ may be dismissed.

¶30

We have heard submissions made by learned counsels for the parties and gone through the relevant record carefully.

¶31

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.

¶32

In support of his arguments learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.3 has also relied on observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

¶33

¶34

in Talli Gram Panchayat vs. Union of India & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2497 ; State of M.P. vs. Ramkumar Chaudhary, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3612 ; Shivamma (Dead) by Lrs. vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969 and by this Tribunal in Medha Patkar vs. Ministry of Environment & Forests, UOI, 2013 SCC Online NGT 63 and Save Mon Region Federation vs. Union of India, 2013 (1) All India NGT Reporter 1.

¶35

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.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

(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.

¶39

¶40

(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.

¶41

(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.

¶42

(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.

¶43

(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.”

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

“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 applicant 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 applicant 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.”

¶47

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

¶48

SCC Online NGT 80 this Tribunal also emphasized the need of adoption of liberal approach by this Tribunal.

¶49

In the present case, the Appellant has stated that it had no knowledge of the grant of the impugned Environmental Clearance dated 28.02.2026 and came to know of the same only on 29.03.2026 upon verifying the website of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC). The Appellant has also contended that although the impugned Environmental Clearance required the Project Proponent to publish the grant of Environmental Clearance in two local newspapers, including one vernacular newspaper but no such publication was made, and therefore the Appellant had no knowledge of the grant of the Environmental Clearance within the prescribed period of limitation.

¶50

However, respondent no.3 has submitted that EC was uploaded on

¶51

the Parivesh portal on 28.02.2026 the very same day on which it was

¶52

¶53

granted. Respondent no.3 had also published a public notice in two newspapers on 03.03.2026 and EC was uploaded on website of respondent no.3 on 06.03.2026. The period of limitation is to be reckoned from 28.02.2026 the date of uploading of the EC on Parivesh portal.

¶54

In the present case the appellant has not placed on record any cogent material to dispute the factum of uploading of the EC on Parivesh Portal on 28.02.2026. The prescribed period of limitation for filing of the appeal has to be reckoned from the date of uploading of EC on Parivesh portal and the fact that the appellant came to know about the same later is not relevant to computation of prescribed period of limitation of 30 days. However, the fact that the appellant came to know about the same on 29.03.2026 can be looked into in considering the question as to whether the reasons assigned for the delay in filing of the appeal constitute sufficient cause and whether the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation of 30 days.

¶55

The Appellant has stated that the appellant came to know about the EC on 29.03.2026, approached the counsel on 30.03.2026 and the appeal was prepared on 31.01.2026 (sic 31.03.2026) but the same could not be e-filed on the said date due to technical glitches in the Tribunal's e-filing portal and was ultimately filed on 01.04.2026, resulting in a delay of two days. In support of these averments the appellant has enclosed copy of screenshot which shows that the site could not be reached on that date. The delay in filing of the appeal till 29.03.2026 is explained on the ground of lack of knowledge and the delay of 02 days in filing of the appeal is explained on the ground of technical glitches as mentioned above. We are of the considered view that 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

¶56

¶57

shown to be negligent and the cause for delay is not shown to lack bona fides. No doubt I.A. No.64/2026/EZ was not filed on 01.04.2026 along with appeal and was filed on 14.05.2026 after 43 days but it is pertinent to observe that in para under caption “ Limitation” the appellant had mentioned that there was delay of 02 days in filing of the appeal condonation of which was to be sought by the appellant by filing I.A. Condonation of delay in filing of appeal can be sought even by way of an oral application and filing of written application cannot be said to be mandatory requirement. Therefore, delay in filing of I.A. No.64/2026/EZ is not of any legal significance. In view of the observations made by 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

¶58

“sufficient cause” have to be liberally construed. When so liberally construed, the facts and circumstances mentioned and the reasons assigned in I.A. No. 64/2026/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. 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 two 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 these facts and circumstances of the case, observations in judgments relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.3 do not support the submission for rejection of the application for

¶60

¶61

condonation of delay in filing of the present appeal and are not of any help to the respondent no.3.

¶62

Accordingly, I.A. No.64/2026/EZ for condonation of delay of two days in filing of the appeal is allowed and the appellant is allowed to file the appeal within a further period of two days under the proviso to Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 permitting further period of 60 days for filing of the appeal.

¶63

In view of the grounds of challenge mentioned in the memo of appeal, first right of appeal conferred by the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and there being no ground to reject the appeal at the stage of admission, the appeal is admitted for hearing.

¶64

Replies to the appeal have been filed by respondents no.1 and 2 but reply to the appeal has not been filed by respondent no.3 and respondent no.3 is given opportunity to file reply to the appeal at least one day before the next date of hearing fixed.

¶65

List on 30.09.2026 for further hearing .

¶66

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶67

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶68

Ishwar Singh, EM

¶69

August 5^th , 2026 Appeal No.13/2026/EZ (I.A. No.64/2026/EZ) P

¶70

Odisha Jana Adhikari Parisada Thr. Its Managing Trustee Bijay Kumar Parida v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Odisha Jana Adhikari Parisada Thr. Its Managing Trustee Bijay Kumar Parida v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

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

Bakir Ali Rangwala S O Haji Ghulam Ali vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary

News Item Titled "Deforestation Ill-Planned Construction and Unscientific - Illegal Mining Behind Himachal Pradesh,S Monsoon Catastrophe" Appearing in the Hindu Dated 25.11.2023. vs

Rohit Tyagi vs Govt. of NCT Delhi

News Item Titled "Govt,S Efforts to Tap Kspcb Funds Set to Hit Legal Hurdle" Appearing in the Deccan Herald Dated 23.11.2025 vs

Remmy Substrates India P Ltd. vs the Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Ms Rockfield Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Kerala

Surekumar Bhagavanbhai Patel (Propriter of Param Granite) vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Yasinbhai Ismail Athaniya vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 42/2025 in Original Application No. 26/2025 of 1. Youth United for Sustainable Environment Trust Represented by Its President Santanu Kumar Bhukta S/O Golak Bhukta Aged About 32 Years vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

R K Singh vs State of Odisha

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 13/2026 in Original Application No. 26/2025 of 1. Youth United for Sustainable Environment Trust Represented by Its President Santanu Kumar Bhukta S/O Golak Bhukta Aged About 32 Years vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Tripti Goswami vs State of West Bengal

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 39/2025 in Original Application No. 193/2024 of Madanmohan Rout S/O Late Laxmidhar Rout vs Sri Nilakanteswar Dev and Other Deities Represented through Trustee

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 27/2026 in Original Application No. 193/2024 of Madanmohan Rout S/O Late Laxmidhar Rout vs Sri Nilakanteswar Dev and Other Deities Represented through Trustee