Allowed

Shahanavaj Khan v. State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Bihar

NGT10 Aug 2026IA No. 70/2026 in Appeal No. 14/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The NGT allowed an interim application for a 10-day extension to file an appeal against an Environmental Clearance. The tribunal found the appellant's reasons, including document verification and legal consultation, constituted sufficient cause under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The main appeal was admitted for hearing.

What did the court decide?

IA No. 70/2026/EZ for condonation of 10 days delay allowed; IA No. 69/2026/EZ allowing exemption from annexure copies allowed; Appeal admitted.

Shahanavaj Khan vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment… — Land Acquisition | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.10

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA (THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

¶3

Appeal No.14/2026/EZ (I.A. No.69/2026/EZ & I.A. No.70/2026/EZ)

¶4

Shahanavaz Khan Appellant

Versus

SEIAA, Bihar & Ors.

Respondents

Date of hearing: 10.08.2026

¶9

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

¶10

Appellant: Mr. Rahul Khurana, Mr. Hasil Jain and Mr. Ishan Sharma, Advocates for the appellant (physically in PB).

¶11

Respondents: Mr. Sibojyoti Chakrabarti, Advocate for respondent no.1 (through VC).

¶12

Mr. Surendra Kumar, Advocate for respondents no.2 and 4 (physically in EZB). Ms. Paushali Banerjee, Advocate for respondent no.3 (through VC). Mr. Rachit Lakhmani (through VC) and Ms. Ayushi Mishra, (physically in EZB), Advocates for respondent no.5.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The Appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 16(h) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 seeking the relief of quashing and setting aside Environmental Clearance dated 12.03.2026 granted by respondent no.1- State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Bihar in favour of respondent No.5-M/s Gita Enterprises, for sand mining project described as “Kishanganj Unit-03 Sand Ghat”, situated at villages Andwakol, Lohaghara, Kanchanbari, Tegharia, Anchal at District Kishanganj, Bihar.

¶15

Along with the appeal, the appellant has filed I.A. No. 70/2026/EZ for condonation of delay of 10 days in filing of the Appeal.

¶16

¶17

The appellant has sought condonation of delay on the grounds that after coming to know about the impugned Environmental Clearance, the appellant was required to collect and verify the relevant documents, including the Environmental Clearance, Letter of Intent, Google Map showing inter se distance between the mining areas, the applicable MoEF&CC Notification dated 15.01.2016, and the relevant provisions of the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016. Further the Applicant/Appellant, being a resident of Bihar and concerned with the environmental impact of the impugned mining activity, had to seek legal advice through his counsels at New Delhi and thereafter prepare the accompanying Appeal with necessary pleadings, grounds and annexures. The process of obtaining, scrutinising and arranging the relevant documents consumed some time. The delay has occurred only on account of the time taken in bona fide collection of documents, legal consultation, verification of facts, preparation of pleadings, and finalisation of the Appeal and accompanying documents. There is no negligence, inaction or want of bona fides on the part of the appellant.

¶18

I.A. No.69/2026/EZ has been filed by the appellant seeking exemption from filing the true translated copy and legible copy of the Annexures.

¶19

In view of the reasons mentioned I.A. No.69/2026/EZ is allowed and the appellant is exempted from filing the true translated copy and legible copy of the Annexures subject to the condition that the true translated and legible copies may be filed in due course of time.

¶20

Vide order dated 25.05.2026 notice of I.A. No.69/2026/EZ was ordered to be issued to the respondents requiring them to file their responses to the same.

¶21

¶22

Affidavit dated 01.07.2026 has been filed by respondent no.1 and affidavit dated 30.06.2026 has been filed by respondent no.4 to the appeal. However, respondents no.1 and 4 have not filed any specific reply to I.A. No.70/2026/EZ.

¶23

Affidavit dated 06.08.2026 in reply to I.A. No. 70/2026/EZ has been filed by the Assistant Director Mines, Kishanganj on behalf of respondent no.3 through email dated 07.08.2026. In the affidavit, respondent no.3 has submitted that the appellant has failed to assign any sufficient cause for delay in filing of the appeal. The appellant has not mentioned why the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation. Condonation of delay is to remain an exception and not the rule. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that while deciding an application for condonation of delay the Courts have to be mindful that strong case on merits is no ground for condonation of delay and the enquiry is to be confined as to whether sufficient cause has been demonstrated for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. The appellant has failed to give any day-to-day or even reasonable chronological explanation for the period of delay and in absence of requisite explanation the delay cannot be condoned. Respondent no.3 has accordingly prayed that I.A. No. 70/2026/EZ may be dismissed.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

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:

¶30

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

¶31

(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.

¶32

(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.

¶33

(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.

¶34

(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.

¶35

(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.”

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

“24. What colour the expression "sufficient cause" would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide

¶39

¶40

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.”

¶41

In Dyaneshwar Vishnu Shedge vs. Union of India & Ors. 2012 SCC Online NGT 80 this Tribunal emphasized the need of adoption of liberal approach in consideration of the application for condonation of delay.

¶42

In the present case, the Appellant has explained that the delay has occurred only on account of the time taken in bona fide collection of documents, legal consultation, verification of facts, preparation of pleadings, and finalisation of the Appeal and accompanying documents. 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 Online NGT 80 the words “sufficient cause” has to be liberally construed. When so liberally construed, the facts and circumstances mentioned and the reasons assigned in I.A. No. 70/2026/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 ten days which period does not exceed the

¶43

¶44

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.

¶45

Accordingly, I.A. No.70/2026/EZ for condonation of delay of ten days in filing of the appeal is allowed and the appellant is allowed to file the appeal within a further period of ten 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.

¶46

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.

¶47

Replies to the appeal have been filed by respondents no.1 and 4 but replies to the appeal have not been filed by respondents no. 2, 3 and 5 and respondents no. 2, 3 and 5 are given opportunity to file reply to the appeal at least one day before the next date of hearing fixed.

¶48

List on 12.10.2026 for further consideration.

¶49

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶50

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶51

Ishwar Singh, EM

¶52

August 10^th , 2026 Appeal No.14/2026/EZ (I.A. No.69/2026/EZ & I.A. No.70/2026/EZ) P

¶53

Shahanavaj Khan v. State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahanavaj Khan v. State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Bihar

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

Sourabh Kumar vs State of Bihar

Veterans Forum for Transparency in Public Life vs State of Bihar

Sohail Gulmohommad Shaikh vs Maharasthra Pollution Control Board

In Re Sinking B Deshi Vessel Dumps Toxic Fly Ash in River Near Ghoramara Shows Video Shared by Panchayat Member News Item Published in the Times of India Kolkata Section Dt 17 02 2025 vs State of West Bengal

Ramesh B. Mundley vs State of Gujarat through Secretary Industries and Mines Dept

M/S. Commercial Stone Supplying Co. vs State of Gujarat through Secretary Industries and Mines Dept

Yusuf Mohamad Godad vs State of Gujarat through Secretary Industries and Mines Dept

Mohammad Yusuf Abdulla Mala vs State of Gujarat through Secretary Industries and Mines Dept

Soni Rajak vs West Bengal Pollution Control Board

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 25/2026 in Original Application No. 149/2024 of Hemant Kumar vs State of Bihar

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

Brian Bhujel vs State of West Bengal

Shahanavaj Khan vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Bihar

Bijay Parida vs State of Odisha