Allowed

Debaditya Sinha v. Mirzapur Thermal Energy Up Private Limited

NGT11 Mar 2026IA No. 760/2025 in Appeal No. 70/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal considered an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an Environmental Clearance. The Court held that the delay was caused by bona fide prosecution of parallel proceedings in the Supreme Court and allowed the condonation application, listing the matter for hearing on merit for a future date.

What did the court decide?

IA No. 760/2025 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

Debaditya Sinha vs Mirzapur Thermal Energy Up Private… — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No. 20

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Appeal No. 70/2025 (IA No. 760/2025)

¶5

Debaditya Sinha Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mirzapur Thermal Energy Up Private Limited & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶8

Date of hearing: 11.03.2026

¶9

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

¶10

Appellant: Ms. Parul Gupta, Advocate Respondents: Mr. Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ritwika Nanda, Ms. Himanshi Nagpal & Ms. Manisha Gupta, Advocates for R – 1 Mr. Bhanwar Pal Singh Jadon, Ms. Gargi Chaturvedi, Ms. Anjali Sharma, Ms. Disha Tiwari & Mr. Shivansh Sharma, Advocates for R – 3, 4 to 6 Ms. Suhasini Sen, Ms. Sista Srinivas & Mr. Sahil Ahmed, Advs. for MoEF & CC

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This Appeal under Section 16(h) read with Section 18(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act) has been filed against the Environmental Clearance (EC) dated 23.09.2025 granted by the Respondent No. 2-MoEF&CC in favour of the Respondent No. 1-M/s Mirzapur Thermal Energy (UP) Private Limited. There is a delay in filing this Appeal, therefore, the Appellant has filed the IA No. 760/2025 seeking condonation of delay. The Respondents have filed their reply to the delay application and opposed it.

¶13

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 760/2025.

¶14

In this Appeal the EC dated 23.09.2025 is under challenge and the Appeal has been filed on 21.11.2025. There is a delay of 29 days from the

¶15

¶16

date of the impugned EC. Submission of counsel for the appellant is that the Appellant came to know about the impugned EC on 07.10.2025, therefore, there is a delay of only 15 days in filing the appeal.

¶17

In the application for condonation of delay the Appellant has stated that earlier the Appellant had filed the Execution Application No. 29/2024 raising grievance against the illegal construction activities by the Respondent No. 1 at the project site without EC and in violation of वन (संरक्षण) अधिधनयम, 1980 and EIA Notification, 2006. The Tribunal also had registered the suo-Moto proceedings in OA No. 883/2023 in this regard. Further plea has been taken that the Appellant had filed IA No. 185063/2025 in the matter of TN Godavarman v. Union of India & Ors. in W.P. (C) No. 202/1995 for protection and preservation of the area under Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and restraining any non-forest activity by impleading the Respondent No. 1. In the said IA, notices were issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in pursuance to the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the Appellant had withdrawn the EA No. 29/2024 on 18.08.2025.

¶18

The Appellant has further taken the plea that it had represented before the MoEF&CC to put on hold the grant of EC and FC to the project pending the proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Appellant had also filed IA No. 233149/2025 on 13.09.2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to bring on record all the issues pertaining to NGT proceedings in EA No. 29/2024 and OA No. 883/2024. Therefore, the Appellant was under bonafide impression that since the issue is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, MoEF&CC will not proceed with the project proposal. According to the Appellant, he came to know about the impugned EC when the reply affidavit dated 07.10.2025 was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court disclosing the grant of EC

¶19

¶20

dated 23.09.2025. The Appellant has further taken the plea that he had continued to prosecute the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court but since there was no update of the next date of hearing before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, thereafter, to avoid any further delay this Appeal has been filed.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has submitted that the delay was caused because the Appellant was not aware of the order of the Tribunal which came to his knowledge only when it was disclosed in the reply affidavit dated 17.10.2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He has further submitted that the bulky record was required to be prepared for filing the Appeal, therefore, it took some time and that the Appellant was prosecuting the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, he could not filed the Appeal earlier but since the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was not coming up, therefore, he has filed the Appeal to avoid any further delay.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 opposing the application for condonation of delay has referred to the prayer in IA No. 275143/2025 filed by the Appellant in I.A. No. 185063/2025 in W.P. No. 202/1995 and has submitted that the very issue involved in this Appeal has been raised by the Appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, the parallel proceedings cannot go on before the Tribunal. He has further submitted that the Appellant has not taken any permission from the Hon’ble Supreme Court to file and prosecute this Appeal before the Tribunal pending the IA before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the MoEF&CC has opposed the application by submitting that the EC was uploaded in the Parivesh portal on 23.09.2025, therefore, it had come to public domain on that date.

¶24

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the State of UP has also submitted that no sufficient cause has been disclosed by the Appellant seeking condonation in filing the Appeal.

¶26

This Appeal has been filed under Section 16(h) of the NGT Act. Section 16 of the Act provides 30 days limitation for filing the Appeal from the date of communication of the order. The proviso to Section 16 empowers the Tribunal to condone the delay not exceeding 60 days, if the Appellant satisfies the Tribunal that he was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the Appeal within the time.

¶27

In the present case, the Appeal has been filed within the condonable period of 60 days from the date of order under challenge. So far as the plea of the Appellant that the limitation should be calculated from 07.10.2025 when the Appellant came to known about the impugned EC on filing the reply affidavit of the MoEF&CC dated 07.10.2025, we are of the view that such a plea cannot be accepted because undisputedly the MoEF&CC had uploaded the impugned EC in the Parivesh Portal on 23.09.2025 itself. Hence, the EC had come to the public domain on that date and the limitation had started running. Hence, calculating from 23.09.2025, there is delay of 29 days in filing this Appeal.

¶28

The Tribunal in the matter of Rajpal Saini v. MoEF&CC by the order dated 19.11.2025 passed in Appeal No. 62/2025 has considered in detail the liberal approach which is required to be adopted while considering the application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal has noted the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard and has held that:-

¶29

“xxx xxx xxx

¶30

5. Thus, we find that in the application for condonation sufficient explanation has been furnished for not filing the appeal within the time. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

¶31

¶32

matter Sridevi Datla v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2021 (5) SCC 321 where the NGT had refused to condone the delay in filing the Appeal which was filed on 91st day since 90th day was a Sunday. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while condoning the delay and allowing the Appeal has held as under:-

¶33

“xxx xxx xxx

¶34

27. Yet another dimension to the issue was highlighted in Maniben Devraj v. Municipal Corpn. of Brihan Mumbai, where the Court underlined a distinction between a case where the delay is inordinate, and a case where the delay is of few days and that in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor; in the latter case, no such consideration arises. After noticing that a liberal and justice-oriented approach needs to be taken, it was stated that the court, equally should be sensitive to the fact that "the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation apart from the cost." The Court then held that: (SCC pp. 168-69, para 24)

¶35

“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."

¶36

28. It is evident that the term sufficient cause is relative, fact dependent, and has many hues, largely deriving colour from the facts of each case, and the behaviour of the litigant who seeks condonation of delay in approaching the court). However, what can broadly be said to be universally accepted is that in principle, the applicant must display bona fides, should not have been negligent, and the delay occasioned should not be such that condoning it would seriously prejudice the other party.”

¶37

6. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has also placed reliance upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors. reported in 2013 (12) SCC 649 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the earlier judgment and reiterated the principles to be applied while considering the Application for condonation of delay as under:-

¶38

“xxx xxx xxx 21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are:

¶39

21.1. (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, nonpedantic approach while dealing with an application for

¶40

¶41

condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.

¶42

21.2. (ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation.

¶43

21.3. (ii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical d considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.

¶44

21.4. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.

¶45

21.5. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.

¶46

21.6. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.

¶47

21.7. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.

¶48

21.8. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.

¶49

21.9. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.

¶50

21.10. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.

¶51

21.11. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation.

¶52

21.12. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinised and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception.

¶53

21.13. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.”

¶54

¶55

7. Hence, considering the reason disclosed in the Application for condonation of delay and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted above, we find that the Appellants were prevented from filing the Appeal within time on account of the bonafide reason and the delay is not unintentional, therefore, a ground for allowing IA No. 633/2025 application for condonation of delay is made out which is accordingly allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned.”

¶56

In the present case also on the perusal of the application for condonation of delay, we find that the Appellant was bonafidely prosecuting this matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and had not intentionally delayed the filing of this Appeal. The explanation which has been furnished by the Appellant in the application for the condonation of delay reveals that the delay has occurred on account of bonafide reason.

¶57

So far as the objection of the Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.1 that the same issue raised before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that such objection can be raised by the Respondents at the stage when the Appeal is heard on the question of admission and hence the said objection is left open at this stage.

¶58

Accordingly, IA No. 760/2025 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶59

List on 26.05.2026.

¶60

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶61

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶62

March 11, 2026 Appeal No. 70/2025 (IA No. 760/2025) A

¶63

Debaditya Sinha v. Mirzapur Thermal Energy Up Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Debaditya Sinha v. Mirzapur Thermal Energy Up Private Limited

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

Mr. Abhishek Vikas Gondane vs Seiaa

Mr. Abhishek Vikas Gondane vs Seiaa

Sanjay Kushabrao Rehpade vs Seiaa

Mr. Abhishek Vikas Gondane vs Seiaa

Rohit Choudhury vs State of Assam

Ia No. 168/2026 in Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 12/2026 of Nitin Dev vs

Hanumant Uttam Govekar vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Girdhari Lal Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee

Bombay Environment Action Group vs Union of India

Suyash Kumar Mishra vs Union of India

Sunil Jain vs

Dr Sandeep Kumar Gupta vs State of Haryana

Dr Sandeep Kumar Gupta vs State of Haryana

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 64/2025 in Original Application No. 487/2024 of Sandeep vs Uttar Pradesh State Pollution Control Board (Uppcb)