National Green Tribunal Considers Appeal Against CAQM Closure Order, Issues Notice on Delay

The National Green Tribunal, by its order dated December 9, 2025, dealt with an appeal against a closure order passed in respect of a construction project. The Tribunal was hearing the appeal in which the appellant argued that the closure direction was not legally sustainable and that the delay in filing the appeal should not defeat its right to be heard.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Prakash Shrivastava, Chairperson, and Dr. A. Senthil Vel, Expert Member, while allowing the appellant’s application seeking withdrawal of one of the prayers, directed amendment of the memo of appeal within three days. The Tribunal also issued notice on the appellant’s application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal and granted time to the respondents to place their response on record.

The appeal, filed under Section 18 of the CAQM Act, arises from a closure order dated 19.03.2025 issued by CAQM under Section 12(2)(xi) of the statute. The impugned direction required closure of the appellant’s construction activity on grounds of non-compliance with air pollution control norms in the National Capital Region. Alongside this closure direction, a show cause notice dated 11.04.2025 had also been issued by the Delhi Pollution Control Committee proposing the imposition of environmental compensation.

The counsel appearing for the appellant informed the Tribunal that the challenge was being restricted only to the closure direction passed by CAQM and that the appellant did not wish to press its challenge to the show cause notice issued by the DPCC. To this end, an interlocutory application was moved seeking permission to withdraw the prayer relating to the DPCC notice.

Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal application and permitted the appellant to give up the challenge to the DPCC show cause notice.

The Bench directed the appellant to carry out necessary amendments in the memo of appeal within three days, thereby narrowing the scope of adjudication strictly to the legality and validity of the closure order passed by CAQM.

The Tribunal thereafter turned to the issue of limitation; It was noted that the appeal had been filed after a delay of 153 days from the date of the impugned closure order. An application seeking condonation of delay had been filed by the appellant, asserting that the CAQM Act, 2021 does not prescribe any specific limitation period for filing an appeal before the Tribunal.

Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in North Eastern Chemicals Industries Private Limited v. Ashok Paper Mill (Assam) Limited, reported in (2023) 19 SCC 798.

The appellant argued that where a statute is silent on limitation, appeals filed within a reasonable period ought not to be rejected on technical grounds, and that the absence of an express limitation provision under the CAQM Act should be construed in favour of adjudication on merits.

Taking note of the submissions, the Tribunal issued notice on the delay condonation application to all respondents and directed that replies be filed by way of affidavit at least one week prior to the next date of hearing.

Counsel appearing for CAQM accepted notice and sought two weeks time to file a response to the application, which was allowed.

The Bench also recorded that two other appeals filed by the same appellant, being Appeal No. 68 of 2025 and Appeal No. 69 of 2025, arising out of similar closure actions in respect of different projects, are pending consideration before the Tribunal.

Observing that common questions of law and fact may arise, the Tribunal directed that the present appeal be listed along with the connected matters for hearing on 16.01.2026.

The order assumes significance as it foregrounds two recurring legal issues arising under the CAQM Act. First, it reflects the Tribunal’s willingness to permit appellants to streamline proceedings by abandoning challenges to parallel regulatory actions, such as show cause notices for environmental compensation, while pursuing substantive relief against closure directions that have immediate operational consequences. Second, the matter squarely raises the question of limitation under the CAQM Act, an issue that may have wider implications for regulated entities seeking appellate remedies against CAQM directions.

The appeal is now scheduled to be heard along with the connected matters in January, 2026.

Counsels Appearing: For the Appellant; Rishav Ranjan, Vaibhav Shahi, Shubham Mishra and Nikhil Kumar, Advs.; For CAQM; Dr. Abhishek Atrey and Navneet Gupta, Advs.

Case Title: M/s Girdhari Lal Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Commission for Air Quality Management in NCR and Adjoining Areas & Ors.

Date of Order: 09.12.025

Bench: Justice Prakash Shrivastava (Chairperson) and Dr. A. Senthil Vel (Expert Member)