A technical error in citing the provision of law in an appeal does not defeat the right to appeal, and administrative orders cancelling environmental clearances must be reasoned, speaking orders based on merits and principles of natural justice rather than being cryptic.

Item No. 22 Court No. 1

ORDER

1. By this Appeal filed under Section 16(h) read with Section 6 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, the appellant has challenged the order dated 22.12.2024 passed by the SEIAA, UP cancelling the environmental clearance (EC) dated 18.11.2022 granted to the appellant. The appellant had thereafter applied for restoration of the EC and the said restoration application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 15.05.2025. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had duly complied with the shortcomings/lapses noted by the joint Committee but the appellant did not have any opportunity to place it before SEIAA and the SEIAA has not considered the matter on merit.

2. As against this, learned counsel for the Respondent-SEIAA has submitted that the appeal has been filed under the wrong provision. The prayer made in this Appeal have already been examined by the Tribunal and issue is already concluded by the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 23.05.2025 passed in IA No. 359/2025 and 353/2025 in OA No. 8/2025 and the order dated 28.08.2024 passed in OA No. 440/2023.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. So far as, the objections of the Respondent-SEIAA, that the Appeal will lie under Section 16(i) instead of Section 16(h) of the NGT Act, 2010, we are of the view that mere mentioning of the wrong provision in the Memo of Appeal will not defeat the right of appeal which is available to the appellant.

5. So far as the objections of the learned counsel for the SEIAA that the issue is already concluded by the orders dated 23.05.2025 passed in OA No. 8/2025 and 28.08.2024 passed in OA No. 440/2023 is concerned, we have perused those orders and have found that the correctness of the orders which are under challenge in this Appeal has not been examined by the Tribunal in those orders, therefore, the issue is not concluded by the orders passed by the Tribunal in those Original Applications.

6. So far as the merits of this Appeal is concerned, the SEIAA, UP has cancelled the EC of the Appellant by a short cryptic impugned order dated 22.12.2024 only on the ground that the show cause notice was not replied by the appellant. There is no clear and specific finding in the impugned order dated 22.12.2024 that the EC conditions were violated by the appellant. The SEIAA has made reference to the report of the joint Committee but even the finding recorded therein have not been mentioned in the impugned order.

7. The Tribunal in the order dated 23.05.2025 passed in OA No. 8/2025 had examined the issue of service of order of cancellation of EC and had found the stand of the Appellant that the order was not served upon him incorrect. There was no reflection upon the merits or correctness of the impugned order therein. In the order dated 28.08.2024 passed in OA no. 440/2023, the Tribunal had noted the conditions of the EC and status of compliance/non-compliance and had directed SEIAA, UP to take action in accordance with law by following principles of natural justice. The cryptic order which has been passed by the SEIAA, UP on 22.12.2024 cannot be said to be an action in accordance with law.

8. So far as the second impugned order dated 15.05.2025 is concerned, that only mentions the detail relating to the service of the earlier order dated 12.12.2024. Again, it does not assign any reason on merit in respect of compliance/non-compliance of the EC conditions for refusing restoration.