NGT Dismisses Delayed Appeal Against Forest Clearance, Reiterates 90-Day Limitation Bar

April 22, 2026 : The Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has dismissed an appeal challenging the grant of forest clearance for diversion of forest land, holding that it was filed beyond the statutorily prescribed limitation period and that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to condone delay beyond 90 days.

The Bench comprising Chairperson Justice Prakash Shrivastava along with Expert Members Dr. A. Senthil Vel and Dr. Afroz Ahmad passed the order in Ajay Dubey v. Union of India & Ors. (Appeal No. 14/2026), arising from a challenge to the approval dated 09 May 2025 granted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) for diversion of forest land in favour of a private project proponent.

Delay of 259 Days Held Fatal

The appeal was filed on 23 February 2026 with a delay of 259 days. The appellant sought condonation of delay, arguing that limitation should run from December 2025 when deforestation activity allegedly came to light and the approvals became publicly known. It was also submitted that time was spent pursuing earlier proceedings before filing the appeal.

The respondents opposed the plea, contending that the impugned approval had been uploaded on the MoEF&CC website on 09 May 2025 itself, thereby placing it in the public domain. Hence, limitation commenced from that date.

The Tribunal agreed with the respondents, noting that even after excluding time spent in earlier proceedings, the appeal remained well beyond the permissible period.

Strict Interpretation of Section 16

The Bench examined Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which prescribes:

• 30 days for filing an appeal, and
• a further condonable period of 60 days upon sufficient cause

The Tribunal emphasised that the statutory language is mandatory and leaves no discretion beyond the outer limit of 90 days.

It reiterated that:

once the period of 90 days from the date of communication of the order expires, the Tribunal loses jurisdiction to condone delay.

Relying on its earlier decisions, including Nikunj Developers v. State of Maharashtra and Save Mon Region Federation v. Union of India, as well as Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal underscored that limitation provisions in special statutes must be strictly enforced and cannot be relaxed on equitable grounds.

“Communication” Includes Upload on Website

On the issue of when limitation begins, the Tribunal clarified that “communication” of an order is complete when it is placed in the public domain.

It held that:

• uploading the approval on the Ministry’s website constitutes valid communication, and
• limitation begins from the earliest date such information becomes publicly accessible

In this case, the approval dated 09 May 2025 was uploaded the same day on the Ministry’s website, a fact not disputed by the appellant.

Rejecting the argument that limitation should run from the date of actual knowledge, the Tribunal held that “mere knowledge” cannot override statutory timelines.

No Power Beyond 90 Days

The Tribunal stressed that the use of restrictive language in Section 16 reflects legislative intent to bar condonation beyond 90 days. It further held that:

• Section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded in such cases, and
• courts or tribunals cannot extend limitation based on equitable considerations

Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed as time-barred.