NGT Dismisses Appeal on Jhansi Sand Mining Clearance

The Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal in New Delhi has dismissed an appeal challenging the cancellation of environmental clearance for sand mining in the Dhasan river in Jhansi district. The tribunal held that the appeal was time-barred and arose from gross non-compliance with environmental clearance conditions, reaffirming the strict statutory limits governing environmental litigation.

Tribunal Ruling on Limitation

A bench headed by Justice “Prakash Shrivastava”, along with expert member “A Senthil Vel”, ruled on December 24 that the appeal was barred under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The tribunal clarified that it has no jurisdiction to condone delays beyond the outer statutory limit of 90 days prescribed under the Act.

Background of Environmental Clearance Cancellation

The environmental clearance for sand mining in the Dhasan river, located in “Jhansi district”, had been granted to the appellant on November 18, 2022. It was subsequently revoked on December 22, 2024, by the “State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority”. The revocation followed findings of gross non-compliance with clearance conditions, as established by a joint committee report submitted in earlier proceedings.

Rejection of Restoration Plea

The appellant’s application seeking restoration of the cancelled environmental clearance was rejected on May 15, 2025. In the appeal before the tribunal, the appellant argued that the cancellation order had not been served upon him. The tribunal rejected this contention, citing previous findings that the cancellation order and related communications had been duly served through registered post, email and upload on the public portal.

Imporatnt Facts for Exams

• National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 governs environmental adjudication in India.
• Section 16 prescribes limitation periods for appeals before the NGT.
• Environmental clearance violations can lead to revocation of mining permissions.
• SEIAA grants and regulates environmental clearances at the state level.

Findings on Delay and Misrepresentation

The tribunal observed that the appeal was filed 178 days after the cancellation of the environmental clearance, well beyond the maximum condonable period of 90 days. Even with respect to the order rejecting restoration of clearance, the appeal was filed beyond the permissible 30-day period without any accompanying application for condonation of delay. The bench further noted that the appellant had falsely claimed non-receipt of official communications, strengthening the grounds for dismissal of the appeal.