National Green Tribunal
Vipin Kumar Saxena vs Seiaa on 24 December, 2025
Item No. 1C Court No. 1
BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Appeal No. 45/2025
(IA No 442/2025, IA No 601/2025, IA No 602/2025)
Vipin Kumar Saxena Appellant
Versus
SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Respondent(s)
Date of completion of hearing and reserving of order: 28.11.2025
Date of pronouncement of order: 24.12.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
Appellant: Mr. V.K. Shukla, Adv. for Appellant
Respondents: Ms. Priyanka Swami & Ms. Meghna Singhal, Advs. for SEIAA, UP
Mr. Akash Vashishtha, Adv. in I.A. 601-602/2025
ORDER
1. By this Appeal filed under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, Appellant has challenged the order dated 22.12.2024 passed by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), UP cancelling the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted to the Appellant. The Appellant has also challenged the order dated 15.05.2025 whereby the SEIAA, UP has rejected the application for restoration of the EC filed by the Appellant.
2. Initially, the Appellant had also challenged the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Jhansi cancelling the lease, but in the proceedings dated 02.07.2024, the Appellant gave up the challenge to the order of the District Magistrate, Jhansi and had accordingly filed amended Memo of Appeal.
13. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has raised an objection that the appeal is barred by limitation and no application for condonation of delay has been filed.
4. The submission of learned Counsel for the Appellant is that no application for condonation of delay is required and the explanation has been furnished in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the Memo of Appeal. He submits that the impugned order dated 22.12.2024 was not served upon the Appellant and that the Appellant had filed application for restoration of the EC which has been rejected by order dated 15.05.2025 and immediately thereafter this appeal has been filed.
5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. This appeal has been filed under Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010.
The proviso to Section 16 provides the limitation for filing the appeal by stipulating as under:
"16. Tribunal to have appellate jurisdiction.--Any person aggrieved by,--
(a) to (j) 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."
7. In terms of the above provision, the limitation for filing this appeal is 30 days and the Tribunal has power to condone the delay upto 60 days.
8. Thus, the outer limit for filing the appeal and condonation of delay in terms of Section 16 and proviso thereof is 90 days.
29. The Tribunal has considered this issue in detail in the order dated 01.12.2023 passed in Appeal No. 18/2023 in the matter of Hafed Sugar Mill vs. Haryana State Pollution Control Board & Anr. after quoting section 16 of the NGT Act and holding as under:
"xxx .........................................xxx.......................................xxx
6. A bare perusal of the above provisions reveal that the initial limitation for filling the Appeal is 30 days from the date of communication of order or decision or direction or determination. After expiry of the initial 30 days period, a further window of 60 days has been provided to the party to file an appeal by showing the sufficient cause which prevented him from filing the appeal within the initial 30 days period and on satisfying the Tribunal about sufficiency of the cause. Thus, the Tribunal has been conferred with the power to condone the delay of 60 days only after the expiry of initial 30 days period. The said intention of the Legislature is clear from the phrase "not exceeding 60 days" used in the proviso.
7. The above issue is no longer res integra. The six Member Bench at the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in M.A. No. 247/2012 (Arising out of Appeal No. 76/2012) in the matter of Nikunj Developers & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. had considered this issue in a case where the delay in filing the appeal was in excess of 90 days. The Tribunal considering the language of Section 16 of the Act reached to the conclusion that the Tribunal loses jurisdiction to condone the delay if it is of more than 90 days. In other words, if appeal is filed after a lapse of 90 days from the date of communication of order, the Tribunal loses jurisdiction to condone the delay. While holding so, the Tribunal has duly considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors. reported in (2010) Vol 5 SCC Page 23 wherein similar provision containing limitation for filing objection in Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was examined and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Singh Enterprises vs. C.C.E., Jamshedpur & Ors. interpreting Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the judgment in the matter of Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise vs. Punjab Fibres Ltd. reported in (2008) Vol III SCC 73. The Tribunal in the matter of Nikunj Developers (Supra) after noting section 16 of NGT Act had held as under:-
"19. From language of the above provision it is clear that the Tribunal loses jurisdiction to condone the delay if the delay is of more than 90 days. Every appeal has to be filed within 30 days from the date of communication of the order. That is, what an applicant is required to ensure before the appeal is heard on merits. However, the Tribunal has been vested with the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal which is filed after 30 days from the date of communication of an order. This power to condone the delay has a clear inbuilt limitation as it ceases to exist if the appeal is filed in excess of 60 days, beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 30 days from the date of communication of such order. To put it simply, once the period of 90 days lapses from the date of communication of the order, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay. The 3 language of the provision is clear and explicit. It admits of no ambiguity and the legislative intent that Tribunal should not and cannot condone the delay in excess of 90 days in all, is clear from the plain language of the provision.
20. As stated in the cases Hiralal Ratan Lal and India Houses (supra) the period of limitation statutorily prescribed, has to be strictly adhered to and cannot be relaxed and or departed from, on equitable consideration. Further, in construing a statutory provision, the first and the foremost rule of construction is that of literary construction. We do not see any reason to expand the scope of the provision and interpret the proviso to Section 16 in the manner that Tribunal can be vested with the power of condoning the delay beyond 90 days. Such interpretation would be contrary to the specific language of the Section and would defeat the very legislative intent and object behind this provision."
8. The Tribunal in Nikunj Developers (Supra) has also duly considered the effect of negative expression "not exceeding 60 days"
and held it to be mandatory by observing as:-
"24. The use of negative words has an inbuilt element of 'mandatory'. The intent of legislation would be to necessarily implement those provisions as stated.
25. Introduction or alteration of words which would convert the mandatory into directory may not be permissible. Affirmative words stand at a weaker footing than negative words for reading the provisions as 'mandatory'. It is possible that in some provision, the use of affirmative words may also be so limiting as to imply a negative. Once negative expression is evident upon specific or necessary implication, such provisions must be construed as mandatory. The legislative command must take precedence over equitable principle. The language of Section 16 of the NGT Act does not admit of any ambiguity, rather it is explicitly clear that the framers of law did not desire to vest the Tribunal with powers, specific or discretionary, of condoning the delay in excess of total period of 90 days."
9. The Tribunal found that Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010 is somewhat similar to Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, therefore, considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (Supra), the Tribunal reached to the following conclusion:-
"26. The provision of Section 16 of the NGT Act are somewhat similar to Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Thus, adopting an analogous reasoning, as was adopted in Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (supra), we would have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that we have no jurisdiction to condone the delay when the same is in excess of 90 days from the date of communication of the order to any person aggrieved."
10. The same issue again came up before five Member Bench of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in M.A. No. 573/2013 in Appeal No. 67/2013 in the matter of Sunil Kumar Samanta Vs. West Bengal Pollution Control Board & Ors. in a case where the appeal was barred 4 by 104 days and an application for condonation of delay was filed. The Tribunal found that the NGT Act, 2010 is special law and the limitation provided under the Special Law must prevail over the general law of limitation especially when overriding effect has been given to the NGT Act, 2010 by the framers of law in terms of Section 33 of the Act. The Tribunal in this regard held that:-
"9. A bare reading of the above provision shows that appeal as contemplated under Section 16 against an order or decision or direction or determination, has to be filed within 30 days from the date on which the order is communicated to the aggrieved persons. Proviso to Section 16 of the NGT Act provides for a special limitation i.e. the appeal could be filed beyond the period of 30 days within a further period not exceeding 60 days, upon showing 'sufficient cause'. This means the tribunal cannot allow an appeal to be filed under Section 16 beyond a total period of 90 days. The NGT Act is a self-contained code as it provides for the forum, procedure, limitation, functions and powers of the tribunal. Furthermore, the scheme of the NGT Act, particularly, with reference to the language of Section 16 of the NGT Act, provides special limitation period. Thus, it necessarily excludes the operation of the general law of limitation. The provisions of the Limitation Act cannot be harmoniously construed with the provisions prescribing special limitation under the NGT Act as in that event it would defeat the very purpose of the NGT Act. A limitation provided under special law must prevail over the general law of limitation; particularly in face of the overriding effect given to the NGT Act by the framers of the law in terms of Section 33 of the NGT Act. In terms of Section 33, the provisions of the NGT Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law for the time being in force. The cumulative effect of all these factors would be that the special limitation prescribed under the NGT Act does not admit any exception to attract the applicability of the provisions of the Limitation Act. Section 16 of the NGT Act controls the very institution of an appeal in the Registry of the Tribunal. In terms of Section 16, the appeal can be filed 'within a further period not exceeding 60 days' but thereafter the Tribunal is not vested with the power to allow the appeal to be filed beyond the total period of 90 days. Thus, the tribunal loses its jurisdiction to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the special period of limitation provided under proviso to Section 16 of the NGT Act."
11. The same view has been taken by the five Member Bench of the Tribunal in Principal Bench in the order dated14.03.2013 passed in M.A. No. 104/2012 (arising out of Appeal No. 39/2012) in the matter of Save Mon Region Federation & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. where an appeal was filed beyond the period of 30 days.
12. The same view has been again expressed by the Tribunal by the four Member Bench of the Tribunal at principal seat in the order dated 25.09.2014 passed in Appeal No. 33/2013 in the matter of Sudiep Shrivastava Vs. Union of India & Ors. wherein the Tribunal held that after the expiry of 90 days period, the Tribunal will have no jurisdiction to condone the delay."
510. Thus, in view of the above settled legal position, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing appeal after the expiry of 90 days.
11. In this matter, the appeal has been filed on 18.06.2025, whereas the first order under challenge by which the EC of the Appellant was cancelled is dated 22.12.2024. The plea of the Appellant is that the order dated 22.12.2024 was not served upon the Appellant. But such a plea cannot be accepted in view of the earlier order of the Tribunal in OA No. 440/2023 and OA No. 8/2025.
12. The OA No. 440/2023 in the matter of Naveen Kumar vs. State of UP & Ors. was filed before the Tribunal wherein the allegation was made that the present Appellant had engaged in the illegal mining in river Dhasan at Gata No. 1419, Khand No. 01 in Village Dhamnaud, Tehsil Garautha, District Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh. The Joint Committee constituted by the Tribunal in its report had noted the violations and non-compliance by the Appellant. During the pendency of the OA initially, in the action taken report dated 22.11.2024, SEIAA had disclosed that the EC granted to the Appellant on 18.11.2022 was kept in abeyance. When the OA came up for final hearing, during the final hearing on 13.12.2024, SEIAA had informed that the EC granted to the Appellant was canceled by the order dated 12.12.2024. Taking note of this fact, the OA No. 440/2023 was dismissed.
13. Thereafter, the Appellant had filed OA No. 8/2025 taking the plea that he had filed the representations dated 19.12.2024 and 07.01.2025 for restoration of the EC. In that OA, the present Appellant took the plea that the order dated 12.12.2024 cancelling the EC was not supplied to the Appellant.
14. Accordingly, the Tribunal in the order dated 23.05.2025 passed in IA Nos. 359/2025 & 353/2025 in OA No. 8/2025 had examined this plea in 6 detail and had found that the Applicant had falsely stated that he had not received a copy of the order of cancellation of EC dated 12.12.2024.
Accordingly, the OA was dismissed imposing the cost of Rs. 25,000/-. The detailed order passed by the Tribunal on 23.05.2025 in IA Nos. 359/2025 & 353/2025 in OA No. 8/2025 is as under:
"4. On the first date of hearing of this OA, counsel for the Applicant on instructions, had submitted that the order dated 12.12.2024, cancelling the EC, was not supplied to the Applicant. The additional affidavit dated 29.01.2025 was filed by the Applicant making the following statements on oath in respect of the non-receipt of a copy of the order cancelling the EC:-
"xxx xxx xxx
4. It is respectfully submitted that, to date, the applicant has not received the order dated 12/12/2024, whereby the Environmental Clearance granted to the applicant was cancelled. The said order has not been delivered to the applicant's address, which is H.I.G., A-135, Opposite Mini Shopping Complex, Ashiyana Phase-1, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh - 244001."
5. It is worth noting that the action for cancelling EC was taken by SEIAA, UP in view of the conclusion reached by the Applicant in the order dated 28.08.2024 passed in OA No. 440/2023 wherein the Tribunal had found as under:
"xxx xxx xxx
13. We find that though there is gross non-
compliance/violation by the PP yet no action either by the SEIAA, UP or UPPCB has taken"
6. The Tribunal by order dated 28.08.2024 had directed the SEIAA, UP as follows:-
"xxx xxx xxx
18. In view of the above, the SEIAA, UP and UPPCB are directed to take action in accordance with law against the respondent, PP by duly complying with the principles of natural justice and submit further action taken report in the form of affidavit of the Member Secretary, UPPCB and the Member Secretary, SEIAA, UP atleast one week before the next date of hearing."
7. The counsel for the Respondent-SEIAA has informed that not only was the EC cancelled, but subsequently the Application made by the applicant for revival of the EC was also rejected, and both the orders were duly communicated to the Applicant.
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties on the perusal of the record. We find that the SEIAA, UP, in pursuance of the decision taken in its 861st meeting, had cancelled the EC and had sent the communication/order dated 18.11.2022 to the Applicant not only through the speed post but also through email and had also uploaded it on the SEIAA, UP public portal. The details of the order and 7 its communication and uploading have been disclosed by the SEIAA, UP. The Application for restoration of the EC filed by the Applicant was also considered by SEIAA, UP in its 888th meeting dated 15.04.2025 and the application for restoration of the EC was rejected, and rejection was also conveyed to the applicant vide communication dated 15.05.2025. The SEIAA, UP, in its reply dated 15.05.2025, has also disclosed that the cancellation of the EC of the Applicant was after serving the show cause notice. The details of order of cancellation of EC and rejection of representation for restoration of EC, and also communication of these orders have been duly disclosed by the SEIAA, UP in its reply dated 14.05.2025 as under:-
"xxx xxx xxx
5. That it is respectfully submitted that, in pursuance of the decision taken in the 851st meeting, the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Uttar Pradesh, was pleased to issue a letter bearing No. 72/Parya/SEIAA/5860/5578/2020 dated 21.11.2024 to the Project Proponent, thereby formally keeping the Environmental Clearance in abeyance. A copy of the said letter dated 21.11.2024 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-1.
6. That it is respectfully submitted that the copy of the letter dated 21.11.2024 was duly communicated to the address of the Project Proponent, Shri Vipin Kumar Saxena, S/o Shri Om Prakash Saxena, R/o MIG-A/135, Aashiyana Pratham, Tehsil and District Moradabad, U.P., in connection with the abeyance of Environmental Clearance for the proposed Sand/Morrum Mining project from the Dhasan Riverbed at Gata No. 1419, Khanda No.-01, Village Dhamnaud, Tehsil Garautha, District Jhansi, U.P. (MoEF&CC Proposal No. SIA/UP/MIN/56882/2020; File No. 5860/5578; Leased Area - 24.00 Ha). The said letter was sent via Registered Post on 22.11.2024 to the address as provided by the Project Proponent on the prescribed Parivesh Portal. However, the registered letter was returned undelivered with the remark "Left" inscribed on the envelope. It is further submitted that the letter dated 21.11.2024 was also sent via e-mail on 22.11.2024 to the e-mail address [[email protected]], as furnished by the Project Proponent on the said portal. A copy of the e-mail dispatch report dated 22.11.2024 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-2.
7. That further, it is pertinent to mention that, following the issuance of the letter dated 21.11.2024, the answering respondent, i.e., SEIAA, U.P., in the interest of justice further 7 days SEIAA shall wait, thereafter, the answering respondent will proceed in accordance with the process established under law for cancellation of the Environmental Clearance (EC).
8. That it is respectfully submitted that the matter was placed for consideration before the 861st meeting of SEIAA held on 12.12.2024, wherein it was noted that the matter had earlier been discussed in the 855th meeting. In the said 855th meeting, it was observed that the matter had initially been deliberated upon in the 851st meeting, wherein it was decided to keep the Environmental Clearance, issued vide letter No. EC22B001UP110182 dated 18.11.2022, in abeyance in light of the joint committee report submitted by the representative of the 8 Member Secretary, CPCB and the Regional Office, MoEF&CC, Lucknow, dated 08.08.2024. SEIAA further noted that a show- cause notice had been issued to the Project Proponent vide letter No. 221/Parya/SEIAA/5860-5578/2019 dated 27.06.2024. As the Project Proponent had not submitted any response thereto, SEIAA, in the interest of justice, resolved to allow a further period of seven (07) days, failing which proceedings for cancellation of the Environmental Clearance would be initiated. It is submitted that, as of the date of the 861st meeting, no response had been received from the Project Proponent. Accordingly, SEIAA was of the considered opinion that the Environmental Clearance issued vide letter No. EC22B001UP110182 dated 18.11.2022 be cancelled in view of the said joint committee report dated 08.08.2024. A copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 12.12.2024, which was duly uploaded on the prescribed public domain, is filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-3.
9. That it is pertinent to mention that, in pursuance of the decision taken in the 861st Meeting, SEIAA, U.P., issued a letter (No. 87/Parya/SEAC//5860- 5578/2018, dated 22.12.2024) to the project proponent, stating that the EC issued vide letter No EC22B001UP110182 dated 18/11/2022 is hereby cancelled and no more stands valid. A copy of this letter dated 18/11/2022 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-4.
10. That it is respectfully submitted that the copy of the letter dated 22.12.2024, pertaining to the cancellation of Environmental Clearance for the proposed Sand/Morrum Mining project from the Dhasan Riverbed at Gata No. 1419, Khanda No.-01, Village Dhamnaud, Tehsil Garautha, District Jhansi, U.P. (MoEF&CC Proposal No. SIA/UP/MIN/56882/2020; File No. 5860/5578; Leased Area - 24.00 Ha), was duly communicated to Shri Vipin Kumar Saxena, S/o Shri Om Prakash Saxena, R/o MIG-A/135, Aashiyana Pratham, Tehsil and District Moradabad, U.P., through Registered Post on 22.12.2024, at the address furnished by the Project Proponent on the prescribed Parivesh Portal. However, the said registered communication was returned undelivered with the remark "Left/28.12.2024" noted on the envelope. It is further submitted that the letter dated 22.12.2024 was also sent via e-mail on 24.12.2024 to the e-mail address [[email protected]], as provided by the Project Proponent on the said portal. A copy of the e-mail dispatch report dated 24.12.2024 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-5.
11. That it is pertinent to mention that, procedurally SEIAA minutes are uploaded on the prescribed public domain. It is utter disappointing with the attitude of the project proponent to say that the applicant has not received the order date 12.12.2024, cancelling the EC nor the said order has been served upon the address of the applicant while SEIAA minutes dated 12.12.2024 was procedurally uploaded on the prescribed public domain.
12. That it is pertinent to mention that, application of restoration was considered in 888th SEIAA meeting dated 9 15.04.2025 wherein, SEIAA gone through file and documents and noted that:-
a. Before cancellation of EC, in light of Natural Justice, show cause notice was issued to the project proponent vide letter no. 221/Parya/ SEIAA /5860- 5578/2019 dated 27.06.2024 and was sent by registered post on the address submitted by the proponent in application form for EC but it was not received and returned back. Hence show cause notice was communicated to the project proponent vide email dated 10.07.2024 and 11.07.2024. He never replied to the show cause notice.
b. Subsequently, the said EC was kept in Abeyance in light of joint committee report of representatives of MS, CPCB and RO, MoEFCCLucknow filed on 08.08.2024, vide letter no. 72/Parya/SEIAA/5860-5578/2020 dated 21.11.2024 and this order was sent by registered post on the address submitted by the proponent in application form for EC, but it was not received and returned back. Hence Abeyance letter was communicated to the project proponent along with DM, Jhansi, MS, UPPCB along with others vide email dated 22.11.2024.
c. Thereafter said EC was cancelled and letter no. 87/Parya/SEAC/5860- 5578/2018 dated 22.12.2024 with Subject- Cancellation of Environmental Clearance for proposed Sand/Morrum Mining Project at Dhasan River, Gata No.- 1419 Kh, Khand No.- 1, Village: Dhamnaud, Tehsil Garautha& District: Jhansi was sent by registered post on the address submitted by the proponent in application form for EC, it was also communicated to the project proponent along with DM, Jhansi, MS, UPPCB along with others vide email dated 24.12.2024 on the email address submitted by project proponent in application form. Registered post was not received and was returned back. The consultant was also intimated vide email dated 06.01.2025. So it is not correct to say that ..."said order has not been served upon the address of the applicant".
d. It is clear that he was in receipt of show cause notices but chose not to reply to the SEIAA on the show cause notices, order keeping the EC in abeyance as well as cancellation of EC order. Otherwise, how did he file restoration application? He is misrepresenting the facts in this matter. Order dated 13.12.2024 in Original Application No. 440/2023 (IA No 607/2024, IA No 535/2024, IA No 383/2024) Naveen Kumar Applicant versus State of Uttar Pradesh &Ors. filed in Hon'ble NGT in the same case states that:
..."5. The Tribunal after considering the report of the joint Committee in the order dated 28.08.2024 had noted that out of 76 "Specific" conditions of EC and 48 "General" conditions, 38 were found to be 'not complied', 17 were found to be 'partially complied' and 48 were found to be 'being 3 complied'. Hence, the Tribunal had found gross non-compliance with the majority of the EC conditions. After noting the said non-compliance, the Tribunal directed the SEIAA, UP and UPPCB to take action in 10 accordance with the law against the Project Proponent by duly complying with the principles of natural justice."...
Hence SEIAA opined to reject the restoration application, as EC was cancelled based on non- compliance of EC conditions as reported by joint committee and submitted to Hon'ble NGT and ample opportunity was given to him to explain himself.
13. That further, the Member Secretary, SEIAA, vide letter no.
11/Parya/SEIAA/5860-5578/2020 dated 15.05.2025, was pleased to issue a registered communication to Shri Vipin Kumar Saxena, S/o Shri Om Prakash Saxena, R/o MIG-A/135, Aashiyana Pratham, Tehsil and District Moradabad, U.P., and also through e-mail at [email protected], conveying the rejection of the application for restoration of Environmental Clearance in respect of the proposed Sand/Morrum Mining from Dhasan Riverbed at Gata No. 1419, Khanda No.-01, Village Dhamnaud, Tehsil Garautha, District Jhansi, U.P. (Leased Area
- 24.00 Ha). A copy of the said letter dated 15.05.2025 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-6."
9. Further details have been disclosed by the SEIAA, UP in this regard in the additional affidavit dated 21.05.2025 is as under:-
"1. That it is pertinent to mention that, in pursuance of the decision taken in the 851st Meeting, SEIAA, U.P., issued a letter No. 72/Parya/SEIAA/5860/5578/2020 dated 21.11.2024 to the Project Proponent, Shri Vipin Kumar Saxena, S/o Shri Om Prakash Saxena, R/o MIG-A/135, Aashiyana Pratham, Tehsil and District-Moradabad (U.P.), formally keeping the Environment Clearance (EC) in abeyance for the proposed sand/morrum mining from Gata No. 1419 Kh, Khand No. 01, VillageDhamnaud, Tehsil-Garautha, District-Jhansi (U.P.) (MoEF&CC Proposal No. SIA/UP/MIN/56882/2020, File No. 5860/5578, Leased Area - 24.00 ha). The said letter was dispatched by Registered Post on 22.11.2024 to the address provided by the Project Proponent on the prescribed Parivesh portal; however, the registered article returned undelivered with the postal remark "Left" on the envelope. A copy of the letter dated 21.11.2024 together with the returned envelope is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-1.
2. That printouts of all relevant e-mails sent on 22.11.2024 conveying the aforesaid letter of EC abeyance to [email protected] are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-2.
3. That it is pertinent to mention that, in pursuance of the decision taken in the 861st Meeting, SEIAA, U.P., issued a letter No. 87/Parya/SEAC/5860- 5578/2018 dated 22.12.2024 to the Project Proponent, stating that the EC issued vide letter No. EC22B001UP110182 dated 18.11.2022 "is hereby cancelled and no more stands valid". The said cancellation letter was dispatched by Registered Post on 22.12.2024 to the same address of the Project Proponent along with copies to the District Magistrate and UPPCB; the postal article was returned with the endorsement "Left/28.12.2024" on the envelope. A copy of the letter dated 22.12.2024 together with the returned envelope is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-3.11
4. That printouts of all relevant e-mails sent on 24.12.2024 forwarding the aforesaid EC cancellation letter to [email protected] are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-4.
5. That a screenshot showing the uploading of documents on the SEIAA public portal, wherein the address [[email protected]] provided by the Project Proponent is clearly visible, along with a copy of Form-2 posted by the Project Proponent, is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-5.
6. That screenshots showing the uploading of (i) letter No. 72/Parya/SEIAA/5860/5578/2020 dated 21-11-2024 and (ii) letter No. 11/Parya/SEIAA/5860-5578/2020 dated 15-05- 2025 on the SEIAA public portal are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-6 and ANNEXURE-7, respectively.
7. That in view of the foregoing, all material facts and available documentary evidence concerning the abeyance and subsequent cancellation of the Environment Clearance have been placed on record with utmost diligence, and the undersigned respectfully submits the present report for the kind consideration of the Hon'ble Tribunal, humbly praying that the same may be taken on file and such further directions as deemed fit in the interest of justice and environmental protection may graciously be passed."
10. Hence the contention raised by the counsel for the Applicant that the orders of cancellation of EC and rejection of the application for restoration of EC have not been served upon the Applicant is found to be incorrect. The above reply reflects that the cancellation of EC was duly conveyed to the Applicant through speed post and through email.
11. Learned Senior counsel for the SEIAA has referred to the address of the applicant mention in the EC on page 471 which is as under:-
Vipin Kumar Saxena, Owner R/o - MIG-A/135, Aashiyana Prtham The & Distt. Moradabad Uttar Pradesh - 244001
12. She has also pointed out that in the application for prior EC Form-II the applicant had disclosed the above address and has also referred to the registered speed post envelopes on page 554-555 to show that the communication through speed post was sent on the above address but returned back as left. She has also pointed out that in the Form-II Application for prior EC, the Applicant had disclosed his email address as "[email protected] and has referred to the page 482 and 563 whereby on the same email address, the order of cancellation was conveyed to the Applicant.
13. The above material establishes that the order of cancellation of EC was duly conveyed to the Applicant, and it was also uploaded in the public portal. Therefore, the applicant cannot deny its knowledge. Hence we find that the Applicant had falsely stated in the additional Affidavit dated 29.01.2025 that he had not received the order of cancellation of EC dated 12.12.2024. Thus, we find that the Applicant 12 has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands and has unnecessarily wasted not only the time of the Tribunal but has also caused harassment to the Respondents.
14. In these circumstances, this OA is dismissed with the cost of Rs. 25000/- to be paid by the Applicant to SEIAA, UP within two weeks.
15. All the pending IAs in the matter are also stand disposed of."
15. It has been pointed out that the said order has attained finality, therefore, it is not open to the Appellant to raise a contrary contention in this appeal that the order dated 22.12.2024 was not served upon the Appellant. Accordingly, such a plea is rejected.
16. The present appeal has been filed after 178 days which is much beyond the permissible period of 90 days. Therefore, the appeal against the order dated 22.12.2024 is found to be beyond the condonable period of 90 days.
17. So far as appeal against the order dated 15.05.2025 is concerned, the plea of the Appellant in para 33 is as under:
"xxx ........................................xxx........................................xxx
33. The present Appeal is being filed well within the statutory period of limitation prescribed under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The impugned final rejection order of the restoration applications was passed by SEIAA on 15.05.2025 and came to the Appellant's knowledge thereafter during the proceedings of O.A. No. 08/2025. This Appeal is being preferred within 30 days from the said rejection, making it squarely within limitation."
18. Though in the above paragraph, the Appellant has taken the plea that the appeal has been filed within 30 days, but calculating the limitation from 15.05.2025 we find that 30 days period expired on 15.06.2025 whereas this appeal has been filed on 18.06.2025 without filing any application for condonation of delay.
19. Counsel for the Appellant had not accepted the option given by the Tribunal at the commencement of hearing, to file the application for condonation of delay and had pressed this appeal for hearing without any such application. Even otherwise, it is noticed that once the EC was 13 cancelled and the appeal became barred by time, the Appellant was required to disclose atleast some cogent reason in its applications dated 07.01.2025 and 19.12.2024 for restoration of EC, but no such explanation was given.
20. In such circumstances, we find that the appeal is barred by limitation and is accordingly dismissed. All the pending I.A's, if any, will also stand disposed of.
Prakash Shrivastava, CP Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM December 24, 2025 Appeal No. 45/2025 (IA No 442/2025, IA No 601/2025, IA No 602/2025) dv 14