Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 691

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
Prakash Shrivastava, Chairperson, Arun Kumar Tyagi, Judicial Member, A. Senthil Vel, Expert Member
Haryana State Pollution Control Board – Appellant
Versus
Malibu Estate Pvt Limited – Respondent
Appeal No. 5/2024 (IA No. 184/2024|IA No. 174/2024|IA No. 63/2024|IA No. 62/2024)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rahul Khurana, Mr. Hasil Jain
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, Mr. Shubham Upadhyay, Mr. Surya Gupta

NGT liberally condones 53-day delay in Pollution Control Board's appeal due to bona fide administrative procedures, emphasizing substantial justice in environmental matters over hyper-technical limitation views.

Headnote:(A) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Section 16 - Limitation for appeal - 30 days from date of communication of order, condonable up to 60 days if sufficient cause shown - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Section 33-B(a); Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Section 31-B - Appeal against Appellate Authority setting aside closure orders - Delay of 53 days condoned as caused by internal administrative procedures of Pollution Control Board including examination, legal opinion, and approval - Liberal approach mandated in environmental matters to advance substantial justice, no gross negligence or lack of bona fides - Supreme Court precedents emphasize non-hyper technical approach for environmental adjudication. (Paras 9-28)

(B) Condonation of Delay - Sufficient cause - Expression to receive liberal construction where no deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides - State authorities entitled to time for administrative procedures without undue delay - Distinction from cases of inordinate unexplained delay. (Paras 14-18)

Facts of the case:
Pollution Control Board issued closure orders against industrial unit, set aside by Appellate Authority on 21.09.2023 (communicated 26.09.2023). Appeal filed on 19.12.2023 with 53-day delay sought to be condoned due to internal procedures: Regional Office examination, Head Office review, legal opinion, approval, drafting.

Findings of Court:
Delay of 53 days within condonable limit of 60 days; sufficient cause established by bona fide administrative processes; no negligence imputable; liberal approach applied given environmental jurisdiction.

Issues: (1) Starting point of limitation - date of order or communication? (2) Sufficiency of cause for 53-day delay attributable to government procedures?

Ratio Decidendi: Limitation under Section 16 runs from communication date; 53-day delay condoned as internal administrative procedures constitute sufficient cause; NGT must adopt liberal, justice-oriented approach in environmental appeals, eschewing hyper-technical views, per Supreme Court directives on substantial justice over technicalities.

Result: IA No. 63/2024 allowed; delay condoned; appeal admitted; notice issued; listed for 20.02.2025.

Table of Content
1. appeal challenges appellate authority's order setting aside closure directions (Para 1 , 2)
2. dispute over delay calculation from order date vs communication (Para 3 , 4 , 7 , 8)
3. parties argue condonability of delay due to administrative procedures (Para 5 , 6)
4. limitation runs from communication; 30+60 days condonable (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. internal administrative processes justify 53-day delay (Para 12 , 13)
6. liberal approach to condone delays in environmental appeals (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
7. respondent's counterarguments distinguished; no substantial defects (Para 20 , 21 , 27)
8. cited cases inapplicable due to differing facts and delays (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
9. delay condoned; appeal admitted for merits hearing (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)

ORDER

1. This appeal at the instance of Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB) has been filed under Section 16(a)(f) and 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act, 2010) read with Section 33- B (a) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (Water Act, 1974) and Section 31-B of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (Air Act, 1981) challenging the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in Appeal No. 20/2023 by the Appellate Authority –HSPCB, Panchkula under the Water and Air Acts.

2. The Appellant had passed the closure order dated 22.12.2023 and subsequent clarification orders dated 02.03.2023 and 19.04.2023 against Respondent No. 1, which were the subject matter of challenge at the instance of Respondent No. 1 before the appellate authority. By the impugned order, the Appellate Authority has allowed the appeal of Respondent No. 1 and has set aside the orders passed by the Appellant herein.

3. Since there is a delay of 53 days in filing the appeal, therefore, IA No. 63/2024 has been filed by the Appellant seeking condonation of delay.

4. The delay application has been opposed by Respondent No. 1 by filing the reply dated 13.04.2024.

5. Pressing the application for condonation of delay, learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the delay was unintentional and that it took place on account of the internal administrative procedure required to be adopted by the Appellant – HSPCB before filing the appeal. He has submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is within the condonable period in terms of the provisions of the Act.

6. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 has opposed the application by submitting that in fact there is a delay of 59 days in filing the appeal and that the appeal itself was filed in defect initially and that no special treatment can be given to the State or its body and there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay.

7. In the present case, the plea of the Appellant is that the impugned order dated 21.09.2023 was received through e-mail by the Appellant on 26.09.2023. The appeal has been filed on 19.12.2023. Hence, the Appellant has calculated the delay of 53 days in filing the appeal.

8. The stand of Respondent No. 1 is that the limitation is required to be calculated from the date of order, i.e., 21.09.2023 and since the appeal has been filed on 19.12.2023, therefore, there is a delay of 59 days in filing the appeal.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties it is noticed that this appeal has been filed under Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010 which provides for the limitation of 30 days from the date of communication of the order. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the impugned order passed on 21.09.2023 was received by the Appellant Board through e-mail on 26.09.2023, therefore, the limitation is required to be calculated from the date of communication. Hence, there is a delay of 53 days in filing the appeal.

10. The proviso to section 16 of the Act empowers the Tribunal to condone the delay of a period not exceeding 60 days. The relevant provision contained in section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010 reads as under:

“16. Any person aggrieved by:

(a) to (f). xxx ...........

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 691

NGT liberally condones 53-day delay in Pollution Control Board's appeal due to bona fide administrative procedures, emphasizing substantial justice in environmental matters over hyper-technical limitation views.

Cases Referred (1)