Vijay Kumar Padalia vs The State Of Uttarakhand
- Neutral2025 INSC 660
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a petition is filed in the incorrect procedural form but the applicant has acted in accordance with directions given by the tribunal in an earlier order, the tribunal should not dismiss the petition on technical grounds alone; instead, it should permit amendment of the petition or allow fresh proceedings in the correct form, as dismissal on such grounds constitutes a miscarriage of justice. When an order granting administrative sanction is appealable under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, a petition challenging that order, though filed under Section 14 as an original application, should be treated as an appeal under Section 16 and remitted for hearing rather than dismissed on the ground of incorrect procedural form. The tribunal may exercise discretion to condone delay in filing an appeal under the Limitation Act, 1963, where time spent in bona fide proceedings before another forum should be excluded, and where the appellant can establish that the order was never communicated to it, such that the limitation period commenced only from the date of actual knowledge.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Non-Reportable 2025 INSC 660 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10989 OF 2018
VIJAY KUMAR PADALIA ..... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. ..... RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
The appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia, had earlier filed Original
Application No. 543/2017 for restraining the respondents therein
and other State functionaries/authorities from constructing the
motor road from NH-87 (now, NH-109)/Dakarauli to Malla Niglat, and
for other ancillary reliefs, including a direction to the
respondents not to cut, destroy, damage or degrade any tree/forest
cover.
The aforesaid Original Application was permitted to be
withdrawn, vide order dated 02.8.2018, with liberty to file a
comprehensive application, incorporating subsequent developments.
This order was passed in view of the statement made on behalf of
the appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia, that he had come to know about
the issuance of forest clearance.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Deepak Guglani Date: 2025.05.09 On 09.08.2018, the appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia, filed what 16:53:47 IST Reason:
he believed was a comprehensive petition under Section 14 of the
1 CA No. 10989/2018
National Green Tribunal Act, 20101, which was registered as
Original Application No. 522/2018.
The impugned judgment dated 24.10.2018 dismissed the aforesaid
Original Application No. 522/2018, not on merits, but on the ground
that in the said Original Application, the order granting sanction
was challenged and, therefore, the appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia,
should have filed an appeal under Section 16 of the NGT Act.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the
view that this is a case where there has been miscarriage of
justice and technicalities have been overstretched to dismiss and
oust the appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia.
Even accepting that the order granting sanction is appealable,
the National Green Tribunal2, Principal Bench, New Delhi, should
have permitted the appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia, to either amend
the Original Application, as filed, or permitted him to file a
fresh appeal under Section 16 of the NGT Act. It is quite apparent
that the appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia, had proceeded in terms of
and in accord with the language of the order dated 02.08.2018
passed by the NGT itself.
In view of the aforesaid position, we set aside the impugned
judgment dated 24.10.2018 with an order of remand to the NGT.
Original Application No. 522/2018 will be treated as an appeal
under Section 16 of the NGT Act, preferred by the appellant, Vijay
Kumar Padalia. We grant liberty to the appellant, Vijay Kumar
1 “NGT Act”, for short 2 “NGT”, for short
2 CA No. 10989/2018
Padalia, to amend the said Original Application to bring it in
conformity with the procedural requirements of an appeal, as
stipulated. In addition, the appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia, may
file a separate petition under Section 14 of the NGT Act. The
aforesaid fresh Original Application may be filed within a period
of three weeks from today.
The amended Original Application/ appeal and the fresh
Original Application will be taken up for hearing together and by
the same Bench.
Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the
issue of limitation may arise in so far as the appeal is concerned.
If required and necessary, it will be open to the appellant, Vijay
Kumar Padalia, to file an application seeking condonation of delay
and rely upon Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. We also
accept the submission that exclusion of time on account of bona
fide proceedings will apply, notwithstanding the upper time limit
fixed for condonation of delay. Further, the appellant, Vijay Kumar
Padalia, will be entitled to raise the plea that the order was
never communicated and, therefore, the limitation period would
commence only from the date of knowledge.
The NGT will examine all pleas and contentions raised by the
parties in accordance with law. We make no comment either way on
such pleas and contentions of the parties or on merits.
The interim order passed by this Court on 07.12.2018, which
was continued thereafter, shall continue to operate for a period of
two months from today.
3 CA No. 10989/2018
The NGT, upon listing of the matters, would be entitled to
modify, vacate or confirm the aforesaid interim order dated
07.12.2018, notwithstanding the fact that we have directed the said
interim order to be continued for two months.
In view of the period of time that this litigation has been
pending, we request the NGT to take up the matter for hearing
expeditiously.
The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Pending applications, including the application for
intervention/impleadment, shall stand disposed of.
.................CJI (SANJIV KHANNA)
..................J. (SANJAY KUMAR) NEW DELHI;
MAY 06, 2025.
4
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free