LawDistill
Supreme Court of India

VIJAY KUMAR PADALIA vs THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 6 May, 2025

Cites 1 provisionsCites 0 judgmentsCited by 0
2025 INSC 660Non-reportableC.A. No.-010989 - 2018Official PDFAuthor HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICEBench Puligoru Venkata Sanjay Kumar, Aravind KumarAdvocates K J JOHN AND CO
2025 INSC 660NON-REPORTABLE
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withdrawn, vide order dated 02.8.2018, with liberty to file a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.

Deepak Guglani On 09.08.2018, the appellant, Vijay Kumar Padalia, filed what

he believed was a comprehensive petition under Section 14 of the

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

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.

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.