Allowed

1. Haripada Manna S/O Late Paresh Chandra Manna Aged About 48YEARS v. 1. State of Odisha Represented by Additional Chief Secretary Forest Environment and Climate Change Department

NGT15 Jul 2026IA No. 65/2025 in Appeal No. 6/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench allowed an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The Tribunal found that the delay was sufficient due to the non-publication of the District Survey Report approval in local newspapers, preventing the appellant from knowing about the order.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay allowed; appeal admitted for hearing.

1. Haripada Manna S/O Late Paresh Chandra Manna Aged… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.07

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA

¶3

(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

¶4

Appeal No.06/2025/EZ (I.A No.65/2025/EZ)

¶5

Haripada Manna Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Date of hearing: 15.07.2026

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. ISHWAR SINGH, EXPERT MEMBER

¶11

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

¶12

Respondents: Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, Advocate for respondent no.1 to 3 and 6 to 8 (through VC). Ms. Papiya Banerjee Bihani, Advocate for respondent no.4 (through VC). Ms. Rashhmi Singhee, Advocate for respondent no.5 (through VC). (Respondent no.9 has been deleted vide order dated 24.07.2025).

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The appellant has filed the present Appeal under Section 18(1) read with Section 16(h) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 with prayer inter alia for quashing the approval dated 25.03.2025 of District Survey Report (DSR), Balasore granted by State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Odisha in favour of the Deputy Director of Mines (DDM), Bhadrak.

¶15

Along with the Appeal, the appellant has filed I.A. No.65/2025/EZ seeking condonation of delay of 50 days in filing of the Appeal.

¶16

The appellant has sought condonation of delay on the grounds that

¶17

the impugned order dated 25.03.2025 has not been communicated to the

¶18

¶19

public at large as till date copy of the approval letter dated 25.03.2025 has not been published in two local newspapers of the District which is a clear violation of the directions given by this Tribunal in Save Mon Region Federation v Union of India and Ors. ALL (I) NGT PB (1) (1) as well as Regulation 10(i) (a) of the EIA Notification, 2006 as amended in 2009. The appellant came to know about the approval of DSR when the appellant visited the office of the District Mining Officer, Balasore on 02.06.2025 on which the appellant had discussions, engaged counsel, mobilized resources, gathered documents, collected funds. Copy of approval letter was obtained on 08.06.2025. The appellant handed over the relevant material to his Counsel on 10.06.2025 for drafting the appeal. Draft memo of appeal was sent to the appellant for approval and on communication of the approval of Draft memo of appeal by the appellant, the appeal was E-filed by his Counsel on 04.06.2025. In the process delay of 50 days occurred in filing of the appeal which was neither deliberate not intentional and the same may be condoned. 4. Respondent no. 4-OSPCB filed reply dated 14.11.2025 and respondent no. 5-SEIAA, Odisha filed reply dated 12.01.2026 to I.A. No. 65/2025/EZ. However, the application for condonation of delay in filing of the Appeal has not been opposed by learned Counsels for respondents no.4-OSPCB and 5-SEIAA, Odisha. 5. Respondents no. 2-District Magistrate, Balasore and 6-District Mining Officer, Balasore filed reply dated 28.11.2025 to I.A. No. 65/2025/EZ. In the reply respondents no. 2-District Magistrate, Balasore and 6-District Mining Officer, Balasore have submitted that the appellant was fully aware of the DSR process from inception and participated in the process and even filed written objections to the draft DSR and the appellant could not claim ignorance of the final approval. The appellant

¶20

¶21

has grossly failed to explain each day’s delay in filing of the appeal and there is no plausible explanation for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal. The application is an abuse of the process and the same may be dismissed.

¶22

We have heard submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant record carefully. 7. 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.

¶23

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:

¶24

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

¶25

(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.

¶26

¶27

(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.

¶28

(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.

¶29

(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.

¶30

(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.”

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

“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.”

¶34

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

¶35

SCC Online NGT 80 where the appeal was not filed within 30 days of the impugned order and prayer was made for permitting extension permissible upto 60 days, this Tribunal while considering the question of condonation of delay in presenting the appeal, noticed the rival claims and emphasized the need of adoption of liberal approach by this Tribunal. The relevant part of the order is reproduced below:-

¶36

“11. As far as the explanation given by the Appellant that he approached and discussed with the local villagers and other project affected persons sought their approval and consent and thereafter travelled to Pune consulted an Advocate and on his advice downloaded the impugned order from the website of the MoEF and then proceeded to Delhi, contacted the Advocate and got the Appeal filed. A litigant is legitimately entitled to put forth in proceeding like this and plead and explain the delay.

¶37

12. Respondent No. 3 repudiating the stand taken by the Appellant tried to convince this Tribunal that the Appellant took active part in the movement initiated to stop project implementation. Since long he had contacts with the social activists who are opposing the project, thus the

¶38

¶39

plea of ignorance taken by the Appellant is only an afterthought and is neither bonafide nor justified.

¶40

13. On consideration of the submissions advanced interse by the parties, we feel in a case like the present one, where the Environmental impact of the project on local population in terms of their environmental harm, has to be assessed, the approach of this Tribunal, especially set up for the said purpose, should be liberal and not "hyper- technical".

¶41

14. The nature of the disputes, as would be evident, from the aims and objective of the NGT Act, this Tribunal is expected to adjudicate upon, is not really a lis between the litigant parties and or adversary litigation. The jurisdiction of this Tribunal is necessarily a wider one whereby the impact of the decision granting EC vis-a-vis the effect thereof on the local community or environment in general and ecology has to be considered. The Tribunal is expected to adopt a broad and liberal approach rather than narrow and cribbed one.

¶42

15. In view of the discussions made above, the delay being less than ninety days, this Tribunal after appreciating the pleadings and documents referred is satisfied that there was sufficient reasons and that deliberate latches cannot be attributed to the Appellant. The law as on date mandates that the EC granted under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 can only be challenged before this Tribunal, we condone the delay and allow the petition for condonation of delay. Parties to bear their own cost.”

¶43

In the present case DSR was approved by SEIAA vide order dated 25.03.2025. However, the said order was not published and even the DSR approved by SEIAA was not notified. The appellant could not come to know about order dated 25.03.2025 approving the DSR as the same was not published in two local newspapers as per directions given by this Tribunal. 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 shown to be negligent and the cause for delay is not shown to lack bona fides. 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

¶44

Online NGT 80 the words “sufficient cause” have to be liberally construed. When so liberally construed, the facts and circumstances

¶45

¶46

mentioned and the reasons assigned in I.A. No. 65/2025/EZ by the appellant for delay constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In these facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the period of 30 days.

¶47

Accordingly, I.A. No. 65/2025/EZ is allowed and the appellant is allowed to file the present appeal within further period of 60 days and the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned as mentioned above. 13. In view of the grounds mentioned in the appeal, the fact that first appeal as per the provisions of the Section 16 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 is a matter of right and also the fact that there is no valid ground/reason for dismissal of the appeal at this stage, the appeal is admitted for hearing.

¶48

Notice of the appeal is accordingly given to the respondents who are already appearing before this Tribunal through their Counsels.

¶49

Respondents are given opportunity to file replies to memo of appeal and the same may be filed within one month.

¶50

List on 17.09.2026 for further hearing.

¶51

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶52

Ishwar Singh, EM

¶53

July 15^th , 2026 Appeal No.06/2025/EZ (I.A No.65/2025/EZ) P

¶54

1. Haripada Manna S/O Late Paresh Chandra Manna Aged About 48YEARS v. 1. State of Odisha Represented by Additional Chief Secretary Forest Environment and Climate Change Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

1. Haripada Manna S/O Late Paresh Chandra Manna Aged About 48YEARS v. 1. State of Odisha Represented by Additional Chief Secretary Forest Environment and Climate Change Department

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

Sureshbhai Jayantibhai Patel (Proprietor of Jay Ambe Mining and Minerals) vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Dharampal vs State of Haryana

Jatinder Singh and Ors. vs Modulus Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.

Jatinder Singh and Ors. vs Modulus Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.

Charan Singh vs

Adil Ansari vs M/S. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Asmoli

Varun vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi

Paryavaran Vikash Sangh through Parmanand Rana vs State of Haryana

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 6/2026 in Original Application No. 51/2023 of Chinmaya Dash So Damodar Das Aged 42 Years vs State of Odisha Represented through Addl Cheif Secretary of Department of Forest Enviornment and Climate Change

Atindranath Chatterjee vs Chairman West Bengal Pollution Control Board

Abhijit Das vs State of West Bengal

Gobinda Dhar vs Department of Environment

Manoranjan Jena vs Orissa State Pollution Control Board

Local Residents Muchibazar Bidhan Nagar Road Area vs State of West Bengal