1. Challenge to road construction and forest clearance — Original Application filed under Section 14, NGT Act — Dismissal based on incorrect procedural remedy. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 802
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJIV KHANNA, CJI., SANJAY KUMAR, J.
Vijay Kumar Padalia – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors. – RESPONDENTS
Civil Appeal No. 10989 of 2918
Decided On : 06-05-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Chander Uday Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv. Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, Adv. Mr. Shreyash Kumar, Adv. M/s. K.J. John And Co, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR Ms. Ankeeta Appanna, Adv. Ms. Rachna Gandhi, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv. Mr. Kamal Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Krishna Prakash Dubey, Adv. Ms. Rubi Kumari, Adv. Ms. Manisha, Adv. Mr. Shashank Singh, AOR Ms. Divya Jyoti Singh, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Chander Uday Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv. Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, Adv. Mr. Shreyash Kumar, Adv. M/s. K.J. John And Co, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR Ms. Ankeeta Appanna, Adv. Ms. Rachna Gandhi, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv. Mr. Kamal Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Krishna Prakash Dubey, Adv. Ms. Rubi Kumari, Adv. Ms. Manisha, Adv. Mr. Shashank Singh, AOR Ms. Divya Jyoti Singh, AOR
The dismissal of an application due to technicalities constitutes a miscarriage of justice; amendments should be allowed to ensure proper adjudication.
Headnote:(A) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Section 14 and Section 16 - Appeal against impugned judgment dismissing Original Application - Original Application was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file a comprehensive application incorporating subsequent developments - Miscarriage of justice occurred as technicalities were overstretched to dismiss the appeal - The tribunal should have allowed the appellant to file an appeal under Section 16 or amend the Original Application. (Paras 5, 6, 7)
(B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Principles concerning exclusion of time for bona fide proceedings were discussed - The appellant may raise that the order was not communicated, impacting the limitation period. (Paras 9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed Original Application No. 543/2017 for restraining construction and damaging of trees which was withdrawn with liberty to file a comprehensive application after knowledge of the issuance of forest clearance. The subsequent Original Application No. 522/2018 was dismissed by the NGT as appealable but not on merits.
Findings of Court:
The impugned judgment was set aside, allowing the appellant to amend the Original Application to conform with procedural requirements, treating it as an appeal under Section 16 of the NGT Act.
Issues: The main issues included whether the NGT erred in dismissing the application on technical grounds and the procedure for permitting amendments or fresh appeals.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found it unjust to dismiss the appellant's case merely based on procedural technicalities, emphasizing the need for the NGT to allow for amendments or fresh applications as necessary.
Result: Appeal allowed and disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a challenge to a sanction order must be filed as an appeal under Section 16 rather than an application under Section 14 of the NGT Act. (Para 4 , 9 )
3. Technicalities should not be overstretched to oust a party, particularly when the party acted in accordance with the tribunal's own previous directions. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. Procedural errors in selecting the remedy should be cured by allowing amendments or treating the application as an appeal to prevent miscarriage of justice. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
5. Impugned judgment set aside — Matter remanded to NGT — Original Application treated as Section 16 appeal — Liberty granted to amend and file fresh petition. (Para 7 , 14 )
6. Can an application filed under Section 14 of the NGT Act be treated as an appeal under Section 16 if it challenges a sanction order?
Yes, to prevent a miscarriage of justice and avoid overstretching technicalities, the court may treat an Original Application as an appeal under Section 16 and allow the appellant to amend the filing to meet procedural requirements. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
7. How is the limitation period affected when a party pursues a remedy in good faith but under the wrong procedural provision?
Time spent in bona fide proceedings can be excluded from the limitation period. Additionally, the appellant may seek condonation of delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. (Para 9 )
8. When does the limitation period for filing an appeal commence if the order was not communicated to the party?
If the order was never communicated, the limitation period commences from the date of knowledge of the order. (Para 9 )
ORDER
The appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia, had earlier filed Original Application No. 543/2017 for restraining the respondents therein and other State functionaries/authorities from constructing the motor road from NH-87 (now, NH-109)/Dakarauli to Malla Niglat, and for other ancillary reliefs, including a direction to the respondents not to cut, destroy, damage or degrade any tree/forest cover.
2. The aforesaid Original Application was permitted to be withdrawn, vide order dated 02.8.2018, with liberty to file a comprehensive application, incorporating subsequent developments. This order was passed in view of the statement made on behalf of the appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia, that he had come to know about the issuance of forest clearance.
3. On 09.08.2018, the appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia, filed what he believed was a comprehensive petition under Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, [“NGT Act”, for short] which was registered as Original Application No. 522/2018.
4. The impugned judgment dated 24.10.2018 dismissed the aforesaid Original Application No. 522/2018, not on merits, but on the ground that in the said Original Application, the order granting sanction was challenged and, therefore, the appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia, should have filed an appeal under Section 16 of the NGT Act.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that this is a case where there has been miscarriage of justice and technicalities have been overstretched to dismiss and oust the appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia.
6. Even accepting that the order granting sanction is appealable, the National Green Tribunal, [“NGT”, for short] Principal Bench, New Delhi, should have permitted the appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia, to either amend the Original Application, as filed, or permitted him to file a fresh appeal under Section 16 of the NGT Act. It is quite apparent that the appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia, had proceeded in terms of and in accord with the language of the order dated 02.08.2018 passed by the NGT itself.
7. In view of the aforesaid position, we set aside the impugned judgment dated 24.10.2018 with an order of remand to the NGT. Original Application No. 522/2018 will be treated as an appeal under Section 16 of the NGT Act, preferred by the appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia. We grant liberty to the appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia, to amend the said Original Application to bring it in conformity with the procedural requirements of an appeal, as stipulated. In addition, the appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia, may file a separate petition under Section 14 of the NGT Act. The aforesaid fresh Original Application may be filed within a period of three weeks from today.
8. The amended Original Application/ appeal and the fresh Original Application will be taken up for hearing together and by the same Bench.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the issue of limitation may arise in so far as the appeal is concerned. If required and necessary, it will be open to the appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia, to file an application seeking condonation of delay and rely upon Section 14 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963. We also accept the submission that exclusion of time on account of bona fide proceedings will apply, notwithstanding the upper time limit fixed for condonation of delay. Further, the appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia, will be entitled to raise the plea that the order was never communicated and, therefore, the limitation period would commence only from the date of knowledge.
10. The NGT will examine all pleas and contentions raised by the parties in accordance with law. We make no comment either way on such pleas and contentions of the parties or on merits.
11. The interim order passed by this Court on 07.12.2018, which was continued thereafter, shall continue to operate for a period of two months from today.
12. The NGT, upon listing of the matters, would be entitled to modify, vacate or confirm the aforesaid interim or
