Guwahati: The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has admitted an appeal challenging the environmental clearance granted to SJVN Limited for the 3,097-MW Etalin Hydroelectric Project in Arunachal Pradesh, after allowing a 58-day delay in filing the case.
A three-member bench of the NGT’s Eastern Zone Bench in Kolkata, comprising Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi, Dr A. Senthil Vel and Ishwar Singh, passed the order on August 12, 2026.
The appeal has been filed by Lakhyajyoti Gogoi, who is represented by Advocate Vikram Rajkhowa. The appeal challenges the environmental clearance issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) on August 23, 2025, in favour of SJVN Limited for the Etalin Hydroelectric Project.
The 3,097-MW project is proposed over an area of 1,175.03 hectares in villages including Adapowa, Aguli and Emuli in Etalin and Anini sub-districts of Upper Dibang Valley district, Arunachal Pradesh.
The NGT’s latest order does not decide the merits of the challenge to the environmental clearance. Instead, the Tribunal has cleared the procedural hurdle by condoning the delay and admitting the appeal for hearing.
Gogoi had sought condonation of a 58-day delay, stating that there was no wilful delay on his part. According to his application, he came to know about the environmental clearance around September 20, 2025, through contacts in Arunachal Pradesh.
He subsequently collected documents and sought legal advice on the appropriate legal remedy. He initially approached advocates in his home district of Tinsukia and was later advised to approach the Gauhati High Court. However, the Durga Puja vacation of the High Court from September 27 to October 12, 2025, affected his efforts to obtain legal assistance. He eventually engaged his present Advocate-on-Record on November 6, 2025, after which time was spent compiling and examining the voluminous documents before filing the appeal.
The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, which is respondent no. 1 in the case, did not file a reply to the application seeking condonation of delay despite being granted time by the Tribunal.
The other respondents included the authorities and entities connected with the project. The order records that counsel appearing for respondents 2, 3 and 4, as well as respondent 5, had stated that they had no objection to the delay being condoned.
However, SJVN Limited, the project proponent, opposed the application for condonation of delay. It argued that the plea was legally untenable and that Gogoi had failed to establish sufficient cause for filing the appeal beyond the statutory limitation period.
SJVN argued that the environmental clearance itself contained conditions requiring its publication and dissemination in the public domain and that Gogoi’s claim of having learnt about the clearance only on September 20, 2025 was unsupported by sufficient evidence. It also questioned his explanation regarding the availability of lawyers and the time taken to determine the appropriate legal forum.
SJVN further argued that the statutory scheme under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act allows an appeal within 30 days from communication of an order, with a further period of up to 60 days being condonable only when sufficient cause is established.
The Tribunal, however, rejected the objection and took a liberal view of the delay.
Referring to Supreme Court judgments, including Collector (LA) v. Katiji and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, the NGT observed that the expression “sufficient cause” should be construed in a manner that enables substantial justice to be done rather than allowing a potentially meritorious matter to be rejected on technical grounds.
The Tribunal also referred to an earlier NGT ruling concerning an environmental clearance challenge, which stressed that cases involving the environmental impact of projects on local populations should be approached in a “liberal and not ‘hyper-technical’” manner.
The earlier ruling had noted that the NGT’s jurisdiction extends beyond a conventional dispute between litigating parties and requires consideration of the impact of environmental-clearance decisions on local communities, environment and ecology.
Applying these principles to the Etalin case, the bench said Gogoi had adequately explained the delay.
The Tribunal observed that the appellant’s explanation regarding his lack of knowledge of the environmental clearance, the time taken to obtain legal advice, the intervening court vacation, determining the appropriate forum, engaging counsel and preparing the appeal “cannot be said to be lacking in bona fides.”
It further held that the appellant had explained the delay by giving detailed reasons and that he had not been shown to be negligent.
The NGT accordingly allowed the application seeking condonation of the 58-day delay.
More importantly, the Tribunal admitted the appeal for hearing, observing that, considering the grounds of challenge raised in the appeal, there was no ground to reject it at the admission stage.
The NGT bench has directed the respondents, including the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and SJVN Limited, to file their replies before the next hearing, scheduled for October 15, 2026.
The August 12 order does not rule on whether the environmental clearance granted to the Etalin project is valid or invalid.
The Tribunal has only allowed the delayed appeal to proceed. The substantive challenge to the 3,097-MW Etalin Hydroelectric Project and its environmental clearance will now be considered in the subsequent proceedings.