Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 4547

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CJ, ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, J, DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, ACJ
Haryana State Pollution Control Board – Appellant
Versus
M/s. 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

The National Green Tribunal must consider internal procedures of authorities as sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals when it pertains to environmental matters.

Headnote:(A) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Sections 16(a)(f) and 18 - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Section 33-B(a) - Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Section 31-B - Appeal by Haryana State Pollution Control Board against the Appellate Authority's order setting aside its closure order against Respondent. (Para 1)

(B) Limitation and Condonation of Delay - The appeal must be filed within 30 days from the order's communication, which can be extended by 60 days subject to sufficient cause. Details cited establish that the delay of 53 days in filing the appeal is within the condonable period. The authority's internal process caused this delay, deemed bona fide and justifiable by the Tribunal. (Paras 9, 10, 16, and 28)

(C) Judicial Discretion - Courts must take a liberal approach in condoning delay to ensure substantial justice, particularly in environmental matters where the impacts are significant. (Para 24)

(D) Findings: The Tribunal sets aside the impugned order, condoning the delay in filing the appeal and instructing parties to proceed with the appeal on merits. (Para 31) (E)

Result: Appeal allowed.

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 ..............................xxx...............................xxx may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order or decision or direction or determination is communicated to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal:

Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed under this section within a further period not exceeding sixty days.”

11. A bare reading of section 16 of the NGT Act reveals that the appeal is required to be filed within 30 days from the date of communication of the order and the Tribunal can condone the delay of upto 60 days, if it is found that the appellant was prevented from filing the appeal within initial 30 days period on ac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document