Allowed

Shambhu Sharan Singh v. State of Bihar

NGT18 May 2026IA No. 81/2025 in Appeal No. 7/2025

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 order by the Board of Revenue, Bihar. Condoning the appellant's explanation regarding lack of notification and advocate's illness, the Tribunal allowed the condonation and admitted the appeal for hearing.

What did the court decide?

I.A. No. 81/2025/EZ for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed and delay is condoned. Appeal admitted for hearing. Respondents to file replies within one month and list delayed for 27.07

Shambhu Sharan Singh vs State of Bihar — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2026)

¶1

Court No.1

¶2

Item No.02

¶3

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

¶4

Appeal No.07/2025/EZ (I.A. No.81/2025/EZ)

¶5

Shambhu Sharan Singh Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Bihar & Ors.

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Date of hearing: 18.05.2026

¶10

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

¶11

Appellant: Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, Ms. Paushali Banerjee and Mr. Vipul Joshi, Advocates for the appellant (Physically in PB).

¶12

Respondents: Mr. Surendra Kumar, Advocate for respondents no. 1, 2 and 4 (physically in EZB) along with Ms. Ruby Kumari, Joint Secretary, Board of Revenue (through VC).

¶13

Ms. Amrita Pandey, Advocate for respondent no. 3 (through VC). Mr. Jayant Kisto, Advocate for respondent no.5 (through VC).

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The appellant has filed the present appeal against order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue, Bihar in Appeal (Pollution) Case no. 5 of 2025 titled Shambhu Saran Singh vs. State of Bihar and others filed by the appellant whereby the above said appeal was dismissed.

¶16

Along with the appeal, the appellant has filed I.A. No.81/2025/EZ for condonation of 29 days delay in filing of the Appeal.

¶17

The appellant has sought condonation of delay on the grounds that on 19.02.2025 Appeal (Pollution) Case no. 5 of 2025 titled Shambhu Saran Singh vs. State of Bihar and others was adjourned to 19.03.2025 but on 19.03.2025 the matter was not listed in the cause list. The appellant was not informed about the next date of hearing. When the appellant visited the office of the Board of Revenue, Bihar on 08.05.2025, the appellant came to know about the passing of impugned order dated 25.03.2025, on which the appellant contacted his Advocate who advised

¶18

¶19

him to file appeal. The appellant has also mentioned that his Advocate was suffering from extreme Uveitis in the right eye on 14.03.2025 and the appellant could contact him only on 08.05.2025. The appeal was affirmed on 17.05.2025 and filed on 21.05.2025. The delay of 29 days in filing of the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate and the same may be condoned.

¶20

I.A. No. 81/2025/EZ has been opposed by the respondents.

¶21

In its reply, respondent no. 3-BSPCB has mentioned that arguments were heard in the Appeal on 19.03.2025 on the basis of which order dated 25.03.2025 was passed. The appellant has made a false statement that the appellant was not informed about the hearing dated 25.03.2025 as no hearing was done on 25.03.2025 and occasion to inform the appellant did not arise. The Appellate Authority on the basis of hearing on 19.03.2025 passed the order on 25.03.2025. The appellant is trying to give a different colour and is trying to make a case that the hearing was done on 25.03.2025 and the appellant was not present for the same. In view of the statement made by the appellant that he came to know about the order dated 25.03.2025 only on 08.05.2025 plea regarding treatment of his Advocate on record in the month of March, 2025 would not be relevant.

¶22

Respondent no. 4-Board of Revenue filed reply dated 20.03.2026 opposing the application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In its reply, respondent no. 4 has denied that the appeal was dismissed without considering the issues raised and submitted that the impugned order is a reasoned and speaking order which was passed upon due consideration of the records and submissions. Respondent no. 4 also denied the allegation that the matter did not appear in the cause list on 19.03.2025 and submitted that the allegation that the Appellant was not

¶23

¶24

informed about the next date is incorrect and misleading. The Appellant was a party to the proceedings and was expected to exercise due diligence in pursuing the matter as is evident from the attendance filed by all other parties on the date of final bearing i.e, 19.03.2025. Respondent no. 4 also denied the plea that the Appellant came to know about the impugned order only on 08.05.2025 upon visiting the office of the Member, Board of Revenue and asserted the said plea to be an afterthought and submitted that orders of the Board are duly recorded and available in official records. The Appellant has not shown any documentary evidence establishing that he made diligent efforts prior thereto. The grounds taken regarding illness of the learned Advocate-on-record are matters personal to the Appellant and his counsel. No sufficient cause has been shown explaining each day's delay. The Appellant himself was not incapacitated. The explanation offered is vague and lacks particulars regarding steps taken by the Appellant during the relevant period. The statement that delay is neither intentional nor deliberate is a bald assertion. Mere assertion of bona fide does not constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of settled law governing limitation. The alleged irreparable loss is imaginary and not substantiated. The impugned order is a quasi-judicial determination passed within jurisdiction and does not suffer from illegality warranting interference. The application is not bona fide but appears to be an attempt to overcome statutory limitation by taking technical pleas. Limitation provisions must be strictly construed. The applicant must demonstrate sufficient cause preventing him from filing the appeal within time. Casual or routine explanations cannot be accepted. The Appellant has failed to show that he acted with reasonable diligence. The explanation is general in nature and does not satisfactorily explain the delay. Condonation of delay is not a matter of right but a

¶25

¶26

discretionary relief to be granted only upon sufficient and convincing explanation.

¶27

In his reply, respondent no. 5-Laxman Pratap has submitted that the appeal was filed after expiry of 60 days from the expiry of the limitation period of 30 days and as such it may not be allowed. Since the appellant came to know about order dated 25.03.2025 only on 08.05.2025 the plea regarding treatment of Advocate for the appellant during the period is not relevant. The appellant has failed to assign well substantiated sufficient cause for the delay in filing of the appeal. Therefore, I.A. No. 81/2025/EZ for condonation of delay may be dismissed.

¶28

Other respondents did not file any reply to I.A. No. 81/2025/EZ. 9. We have heard submissions made by learned Counsels for the parties and we have gone through the material placed on record. 10. In their arguments, learned Counsels for the parties have reiterated the factual and legal submissions made in the application for condonation of delay and replies to the same respectively.

¶29

In the present case, a copy of order dated 19.02.2025 passed in Case no. 5 of 2025 titled Shambhu Saran Singh vs. State of Bihar and others has been placed on record in which next date of hearing is mentioned as 19.03.2025. The appellant has claimed that the matter was not listed on 19.03.2025. Respondent no. 4 has claimed to have produced copy of cause list for 19.03.2025 but respondent no. 4 has not

¶30

produced copy of cause list for 19.03.2025 and has merely produced copy of notice dated 25.02.2025 issued for hearing on 19.03.2025 Respondents have claimed that the Appellate Authority passed order dated 25.03.2025 on the basis of hearing on 19.03.2025. Any order disposing of appeal passed on the basis of hearing on 19.03.2025 was

¶31

¶32

required to be passed on 19.03.2025 and was required to bear that date. If the order disposing of appeal could not be passed on 19.03.2025 then daily order was required to be recorded adjourning the case to 25.03.2025 for orders. The respondents have not produced copy of order passed on 19.03.2025 to show that there was hearing of the case on 19.03.2025 and that the appellant or his Counsel was present on that date. Respondents have stated that no order was passed on 19.03.2025. We see no valid reason for not passing of such order on 19.03.2025. In the absence of copy of order dated 19.03.2025, assertion made by the appellant that the matter was not listed on 19.03.2025 cannot be lightly brushed aside.

¶33

The appellant has submitted that the appellant came to know about passing of the order dated 25.03.2025 on 08.05.2025 and contacted his Advocate who drafted the appeal on 17.05.2025 and filed the same on 21.05.2025. The respondents have not produced any cogent material to falsify/refute this averment.

¶34

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.

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

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

¶38

following factors:

¶39

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

¶40

(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. (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

15. 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

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

¶48

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

¶49

¶50

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:-

¶51

“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.

¶52

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

¶53

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".

¶54

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.

¶55

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.”

¶56

In the present case, the applicant is not shown to be negligent in

¶57

participation in the proceedings before the Board of Revenue. The cause shown for the delay is not shown to lack bona fides. In view of the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector (LA) vs. Katiji

¶58

(1987) 2 SCC 107 and Maniben Devraj Shah vs. Municipal

¶59

¶60

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” have to be liberally construed. When so liberally construed, the facts and circumstances mentioned and the reasons assigned in I.A. No. 81/2025/EZ by the appellant make out 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. Therefore, the appellant deserves to be allowed to file the present appeal within further period of 60 days.

¶61

Accordingly, I.A. No. 81/2025/EZ for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal is allowed and delay in filing of the appeal is condoned as mentioned above.

¶62

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.

¶63

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

¶64

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

¶65

List on 27.07.2026 for further hearing.

¶66

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶67

Ishwar Singh, EM

¶68

May 18^th , 2026 Appeal No.07/2025/EZ (I.A. No.81/2025/EZ) SN

¶69

Shambhu Sharan Singh v. State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shambhu Sharan Singh v. State of 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

Lucknow Omaxe City Residents & Allotters Association (Loraa) vs Ms Omaxe Limited

Raghvendra Chaddha vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Lucknow Omaxe City Residents & Allotters Association (Loraa) vs Ms Omaxe Limited

Lucknow Omaxe City Residents & Allotters Association (Loraa) vs Ms Omaxe Limited

Haider Ali vs Commissioner Nagar Nigam Alwar

Haider Ali vs Commissioner Nagar Nigam Alwar

Kishan Vikash Seva Samiti Mesiya vs State of Rajasthan

News Item Titled "Sindh Nallah Polluted Trout Habitat Threatened in Ganderbal" Appearing in Greater Kashmir Dated 19.08.2024 vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 8/2019 in Original Application No. 80/2016 of People United for Better Living in Calcutta Represented by Suvrajyoti Chatterjee Member vs East Kolkata Wetlands Management Authority through the Chairperson

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 11/2019 in Original Application No. 80/2016 of People United for Better Living in Calcutta Represented by Suvrajyoti Chatterjee Member vs East Kolkata Wetlands Management Authority through the Chairperson

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 47/2026 in Execution Application No. 73/2025 of Ashish Sharma vs

1. Raj Kishore Swain S/O Late Bauribandhu Swain Aged About 71 Years vs State of Odisha through the Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department Government of Odisha

Kailash Chandra Nayak C/O- Chakradhara Nayak vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Sanjaya Kumar Mishra vs State of Odisha