NGT Pune Bench Rejects Plea to Terminate Appeal Against GHCL’s Soda Ash Project, Says Right to Appeal Independent
Pranav B Prem
The National Green Tribunal (Western Zone Bench, Pune) has refused to dismiss an appeal challenging the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted to GHCL Ltd. for its proposed Light Soda Ash, Dense Soda Ash, and Sodium Bicarbonate project in Mandvi Taluka, Kutch, Gujarat. The Tribunal clarified that the statutory right of an “aggrieved person” under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 to question an EC is independent, and cannot be curtailed merely on the ground that another appeal has also been filed against the same clearance.
Also Read: Himalayas Under Watch: NGT Weighs Strategy to Safeguard Fragile Mountain Ecosystem
The matter was heard by a three-member Bench comprising Justice Prakash Shrivastava (Chairperson), Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh (Judicial Member), and Dr. Vijay Kulkarni (Expert Member). The appeal, filed by Go Green Foundation Trust under Section 16(h) of the NGT Act, sought to challenge the EC dated 12 December 2024 granted by the MoEF&CC in favour of GHCL Ltd.
Project Proponent’s Plea for Dismissal
GHCL, the project proponent, sought dismissal of the appeal by way of I.A. No. 89 of 2025, arguing that Appeal No. 19 of 2025 had already been filed challenging the same EC on identical grounds. Senior Advocate Sanjay Upadhyay contended that maintaining successive appeals amounts to multiplicity of proceedings, delays project implementation, and is contrary to principles embodied in Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Reliance was placed on Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. v. Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Ltd. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 82), where the Supreme Court held that successive suits by the same party are impermissible, as well as Gurubux Singh v. Bhooralal (AIR 1964 SC 1810). The project proponent also cited an order of the NGT Central Zone in Kanhaiya Lal Gadri v. MoEF&CC (Appeal No. 13 of 2022), where a second appeal was rejected on the principle of res judicata.
Appellant’s Response
Counsel for the appellant countered that the present appeal was filed earlier in time, but was numbered later due to registry defects. It was stressed that the appellant enjoys an independent statutory right to challenge the EC, which cannot be taken away merely because another aggrieved person has exercised a similar right.
Tribunal’s Findings
After hearing the parties, the Bench rejected GHCL’s plea for dismissal. It observed that under Section 16 of the NGT Act, “any person aggrieved” has the right to appeal against an order granting environmental clearance. Since Appeal No. 19 of 2025 and Appeal No. 26 of 2025 were filed by different appellants, each invoking their statutory entitlement, the bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC was inapplicable.
On the precedents cited by GHCL, the Bench clarified that in both Cuddalore Powergen and Gurubux Singh, successive proceedings were instituted by the same party, unlike the present case involving distinct appellants. Similarly, in Kanhaiya Lal Gadri, the Tribunal had already decided one appeal before the second was filed, whereas here both appeals were instituted within a short span of time and neither had reached an advanced stage of hearing.
The Bench also noted that there was no material to support GHCL’s allegation that the appeal was filed as a ploy to delay the project. Accordingly, I.A. No. 89 of 2025 seeking dismissal of the appeal was rejected. However, to avoid duplication, the Bench directed that Appeal No. 26 of 2025 be heard together with connected Appeal No. 19 of 2025.
Condonation of Delay
The Tribunal also considered I.A. No. 52 of 2025, filed by the appellant for condonation of a one-day delay in filing the appeal. It was explained that the delay occurred because 11 January 2025 was a second Saturday when the registry was closed, and the appeal was filed on the next working day. Additionally, the appellant had to examine more than 3,000 pages of supporting documents, including the Environmental Impact Assessment report, which reasonably consumed time.
Finding the explanation bona fide, the Bench held that the delay was neither deliberate nor mala fide. Adopting a liberal approach consistent with established principles, the Tribunal condoned the delay.
In conclusion, the NGT rejected GHCL’s plea to dismiss the appeal, condoned the delay in filing, and directed that both appeals against the EC for GHCL’s Kutch project be listed together for substantive hearing on 17 November 2025.
Appearance
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 i/b and with , Ms. Eisha Krishn, Ms. Mansi Bachani, Mr. Shubham Upadhyay and Ms. Gitanjali Sanyal, Advocates for the applicant in I.A. 89/2025 (WZ) & R-13 in Appeal 26/2025(WZ)
Cause Title: Go Green Foundation Trust V. Union of India & Ors.
Case No: Appeal No. 26 of 2025 (WZ) With I.A. No. 89 of 2025 (WZ) And I.A. No. 52 of 2025 (WZ)
Coram: Justice Prakash Shrivastava (Chairperson), Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh (Judicial Member), Dr. Vijay Kulkarni (Expert Member)
