Partly allowed

Rohit Singh v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

NGT3 Feb 2026IA No. 843/2025 in Appeal No. 82/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal, in an appeal challenging an Environmental Clearance, condoned the appellant's delay of 53 days in filing the appeal, allowing the prayer liberal under Section 16(h) NGT Act as the delay fell within the condonable period.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the 53-day delay in filing the appeal; application IA No. 843/2025 allowed.

Rohit Singh vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate… — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No. 17

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Appeal No. 82/2025 (IA No 73/2026, IA No 74/2026, IA No 843/2025, IA No 844/2025, IA No 845/2025)

¶5

Rohit Singh Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change & Ors.

¶8

Respondent(s)

¶9

Date of hearing: 03.02.2026

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶11

Appellant: Mr. Rohit Singh, Appellant in person (Through VC).

¶12

Respondents: Ms. Suhasini Sen & Ms. Sista Srinivas, Advs. for MoEF & CC Mr. Vaibhav Srivastava, AAG with Mr. Bhargava Ravikumar, Adv. for HP SPCB)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

By this Appeal filed under Section 16(h) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act, 2010), the Appellant has challenged the Environmental Clearance (EC) dated 25.09.2025 issued in favour of the Respondent No. 2. There is a delay about 53 days in filing this Appeal. Hence, IA No. 843/2025 has been filed by the Appellant seeking condonation of delay. The Appellant appearing virtually has submitted that the Appellant at the initially stage itself had filed OA No. 148/2025 against the action initiated including the ToR for grant of EC to the Respondent No. 2 and when during the pendency of that OA, the present EC has been granted.

¶15

He submits that the Appellant was being harassed and the criminal case was registered against the Appellant and the anticipatory bail was

¶16

¶17

denied to him which was finally granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 26.09.2025 and therefore the Appellant could not take appropriate steps.

¶18

He has further submitted that the after the EC was granted, he was required to collect further information and material and file the reply, in this process time was consumed and delay has taken place. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 have opposed the Application and have submitted that there is no justifiable reason for the delay.

¶19

Having regard to the explanation which has been furnished by the Appellant and taking note of the fact that the Appellant was pursuing the same issue even before the grant of EC by filing the OA No. 148/2025 and during the pendency of the OA this impugned EC has been granted and also having regard to the explanation which has been furnished by the Appellant and considering the facts that such an application for condonation of delay is required to be liberally considered, we are of the view that a case for allowing the prayer for condonation is delay is made out. That apart, we also find that delay is within the condonable period as provided under proviso to Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010. Hence, IA No. 843/2025 is allowed and delay in filing the Appeal is condoned.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents are granted six weeks to file the reply.

¶21

List on 13.03.2026

¶22

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶23

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶24

February 03, 2026 Appeal No. 82/2025 (IA Nos. 73/2026, 74/2026, 843/2025, 844/2025 & 845/2025) A

¶25

Rohit Singh v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Suryakant J Shelake vs Ms Skb Builder India Pvt. Ltd.

Sudesh Kumar vs State of Haryana

Sudesh Kumar vs State of Haryana

Dr Rajesh Bahuguna vs State of Uttarakhand

Suo Motu Activists Local Residents Question Legality of Tourism Development Work at Ooty Lake vs the District Collector Nilgiris

Sarang Yadwadkar vs Pune Municipal Corporation through Municipal Commissioner

M/S Rameshwar Stone Supplier vs Seiaa

Nilkanth Stone Industries vs Seiaa

Sudesh Kumar vs State of Haryana

Sudesh Kumar vs State of Haryana

Dr Rajesh Bahuguna vs State of Uttarakhand

Rohit Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Rohit Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Aditya Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh