The National Green Tribunal Western Zone Bench, Pune rejected an application seeking dismissal of an appeal challenging Environmental Clearance while allowing condonation of a one-day delay in filing. The Bench comprising Justice Prakash Shrivastava, Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh and Dr. Vijay Kulkarni held that different aggrieved parties have independent statutory rights to challenge the same Environmental Clearance and such rights could not be curtailed unless restrained by law.
The appeal challenged the Environmental Clearance (EC) under Section 16 (h) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, dated 12.12.2024 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF&CC) in favour of M/s. GHCL Ltd./Project Proponent for proposed project to produce Light Soda Ash, Dense Soda Ash, and Sodium Bicarbonate. GHCL Ltd. sought dismissal arguing that another appeal had been filed challenging the same EC on the same grounds, leading to multiplicity of proceedings.
It was argued that the present appeal was filed to delay the project and was not maintainable under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, relying on the Supreme Court judgments in Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. vs. Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Ltd. & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 82 and Gurubux Singh vs. Bhooralal, AIR 1964 SC 1810. Opposing this, the appellant argued they have independent statutory right to file appeal.
The Tribunal noted that different appellants filed separate appeals against the same EC. Two different aggrieved appellants questioned the same Environmental Clearance by filing two different appeals. The right to file appeal had accrued under Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010. As far as reliance on the matter of Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. (supra) is concerned, the tribunal held that, in that case, the same plaintiff filed a second suit during the first suit’s pendency, but here, different appellants filed separate appeals against the same order. Similarly, concerning Gurubux Singh v. Bhooralal, the Tribunal noted that in that case also, the same plaintiff had filed the second suit. The Tribunal clarified that Order II Rule 2 of CPC applies when the same plaintiff files a second suit for a claim omitted in the first, but here, different appellants exercised their independent statutory right to file separate appeals.
Regarding the timing of appeals, the Tribunal noted that the appeals were filed on 30.01.2025 and 10.02.2025 respectively. No evidence of delay tactics was found. Both appeals were to be heard together.
The Tribunal also considered an application seeking condonation of one day delay in filing the appeal. One-day delay due to registry closure and time needed to analyze 3000+ pages of documents. The Tribunal found that the delay was unintentional and caused by bona fide reasons. Accordingly, the application was allowed. The matter was listed along with Appeal No.19 of 2025 (WZ) on 17.11.2025, for hearing.
Appearances:
Appellant: Ms. Pradnya Bheke, Advocate h/f Mr. Nitin Lonkar, Advocate
Respondents: Mr. Pushkal Mishra, Advocate for R-1/MoEF&CC; Mr. Neelkanth R. Mehta, Advocate for R-8 & 9/GPCB; Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, Senior Advocate with Ms. Eisha Krishn, Ms. Mansi Bachani, Mr. Shubham Upadhyay and Ms. Gitanjali Sanyal, Advocates for R-13
