Uttarakhand High Court
WPPIL/174/2024 on 18 March, 2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
18TH MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 174 OF 2024
and connected cases
Presence:-
Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned Amicus Curiae in WPPIL No.174 of 2024.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Gajendra Tripathi,
learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India.
Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Pollution Control
Board.
Dr. Aman Rab, learned counsel for the SEIAA.
Mr. Piyush Garg and Ms. Priyanka Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent
nos.68, 170 and 108.
Mr. Vinod Prasad, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Meenakshi Parihar
and Mr. Pawan Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent nos.46, 76, 116, 121,
131, 150, 109, 111, 169, 46, 47, 100, 23, 44 and 45.
Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Hemant Pant,
learned counsel for respondent nos.22, 28, 57, 70, 75, 77, 93, 113, 125, 132,
133, 156, 163, 166, 173, 174, 32, 41 and 162.
Mr. Basant Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos.19, 55, 26, 25, 33, 18,
92, 81, 48, 17, 16, 104 and 124.
Ms. Menka Tripathi and Ms. Pushpila Bisht, learned counsel for respondent
no.43.
ORDER:(per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.) Stay Vacation Applications/ Modification Applications (IA Nos. 25, 38, 39, 21, 36, 31, 34, 35, 42, 43, 49, 50, 51, 08, 22 and 79 of 2025)
1. Heard learned Amicus Curiae, learned Senior Counsel assisted by learned counsel for the applicants, learned State Counsel and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The present PIL relates to alleged unregulated 1 mining of soapstone in various villages of District Bageshwar. By order dated 06.01.2025, this Court directed that pending consideration of the matter on merits, all mining operations in District Bageshwar shall remain suspended with immediate effect. Further on 09.01.2025, another order was passed by this Court to the effect that the Station House Officers under their respective jurisdiction shall depute personnels to inspect the mining sites and wherever machineries are found, the same be seized and an inventory of the same along with the material found at the site would be drawn up.
3. In wake of the said orders, various interventions applications came to be filed containing different prayers. Essentially, the prayer made in these applications is for permitting the applicants to resume the mining operations and to release the seized vehicles/ machineries. The case of the applicants, mostly, is that they were having valid consent to operate permissions from the Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board and their mining units were fully compliant with all statutory and regulatory requirements.
4. Certain applications have also been filed by the owners of the vehicles/ machineries for release of the vehicles/ machineries in their favour as the same were seized in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 2 09.01.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants have invited our attention towards order of the Supreme Court dated 17.11.2025 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.23540 of 2025, filed challenging the order dated 17.02.2025 in the present PIL, whereby this Court has noted with concern the fact that the waste generated by the mine operators in course of mining operation have slid into the river and water bodies and have damaged the water bodies. While noticing the said concern, the Court has extended the ban on mining operations till the mine operators are able to individually satisfy this Court that mining operations have been carried out in conformity with the lease conditions, Acts and Rules. The Supreme Court has noted that the State of Uttarakhad had placed before it data with regard to the mining leases in the State and there-from it was evident that only 09 units were operating illegally, whereas 29 soapstone mining lease holders were fully compliant and had not committed any irregularity.
6. After noticing the stand taken by the State Government in this behalf, the Supreme Court has observed that there cannot be a blanket ban on mining operations as it would adversely impact the economy of the State and also the livelihood of the people who are dependent on 3 mining operations. The Supreme Court has, accordingly, permitted 29 soapstone mining lease holders, in relation to which, the State took stand that they were having valid permissions and were not found to have committed any irregularity, to resume mining operations in accordance with law and due procedure. The Supreme Court has also permitted the use of machinery by these mining lease holders, as per their mining plans and environment clearances. The relevant part of the order of Supreme Court is extracted below:-
"At the time of passing of the aforesaid order, the State of Uttarakhand had placed on record the data with regard to the mining leases in the State that were found to be operating illegally, i.e., 9 in number. The State categorically stated that insofar as 29 Soapstone mining lease holders were concerned, no irregularities had been found.
In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the High Court cannot interdict lawful mining operations by mining lease holders operating in accordance with due procedure, by way of a blanket ban. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, learned senior counsel, appearing for the State of Uttarakhand, the ban would not only impact the economic well-being of the State but also the livelihood of its people who are dependent on these mining operations.
We, accordingly, all the 29 Soapstone mining lease holder, who find mention in the table set out at pages 352-355 in Volume 2 of the special leave petition paper books, to continue with their mining operations in accordance with law and due procedure. Use of machinery by these mining lease holders, as per their mining plans and environment clearances, shall also be permitted."
7. Learned counsel for the applicants have also invited out attention towards another order of the Supreme Court dated 18.02.2026 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) 4 Nos.36897-36898/2025, filed challenging the order dated 05.12.2025 in the present PIL, whereby this Court after noticing certain averments made in the short counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the State, observed that the facts contained therein are non-existent and, consequently, the deponent of the short counter-affidavit was directed to remain present before this Court on the next date of hearing. The order passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.17547/2025 reveals that the Supreme Court interacted with Ms. Nazia Hassan, District Mining Officer and, thereafter, has observed as follows:-
"We have interacted with Ms. Nazia Hassan, District Mining Officer, who is present in person before this Court, pursuant to our earlier order. We find that necessary steps need to be taken to make all the valid mining leases, which are subsisting as on date, fully compliant with all the requisite norms in all respects."
8. The Supreme Court has also noted that it was informed that only one mining lease holder, namely, M/s Katiyar Mining and Industrial Corporation, out of 29 mining lease holders, who were not levied with any penalty, had secured consent to operate and was functioning. After noticing the said fact, the Supreme Court observed that all other mining lease holders, who have not been penalized, shall ensure compliance with all the prescribed norms before they seek consent to operate order to resume functioning.
5
9. Subsequently, this Court in the present PIL vide order dated 25.02.2026 disposed of an application filed by one Almora Magnisite Ltd., which was having the consent to operate order in its favour for a period of four months to carry on mining operations, subject to regular monitoring by the District Mining Officer.
10. The submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are having valid consent to operate orders in their favour and the mining leases are also subsisting. They also fulfill all the statutory requirements and norms and, therefore, they should be permitted to resume mining operations and the vehicles/ machineries seized in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 09.01.2025 be released in their favour in light of the order passed by the Supreme Court dated 17.11.2025 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.23540 of 2025 and the order dated 18.02.2026 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.36897-368998/2025. It is submitted that the vehicles which were being used were in accordance with the mining plan and, therefore, wrongly seized.
11. As noted above, the Supreme Court has already permitted 29 soapstone mining lease holders to resume their mining operations and to use machineries as per their 6 mining plans and environment clearances. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the other mine operators who are also having subsisting leases and valid consent to operate orders and fulfill other requirements of law and are fully compliant and have not been saddled with any major penalty, should also be permitted to resume the mining operations. However, these facts are to be ascertained and verified before they are permitted to resume the mining operations or any order is passed for release of the seized vehicles/ machineries. For the said purpose and as suggested by the learned counsel for the parties also, we feel that some responsible officer should be designated to examine individual cases and submit report to this Court so that, on basis of the same, the applications are disposed of.
12. It is suggested by the parties that Ms. Nazia Hassan, District Mining Officer be assigned the role of verifying the compliances of mining laws and also whether the vehicles used were as per mining plan or not.
13. We accept the suggestion and, accordingly, request Ms. Nazia Hassan, District Mining Officer to inquire into the claims of individual mine operators as regards the valid permissions in their favour and other compliances required to be made under the mining laws. The District Mining Officer shall be at liberty to examine claim of any 7 other mine operator also, who has not approached this Court, but whose mining operation, got suspended as a result of the ban imposed by this Court.
14. For examining the compliances of environment laws, we feel that an officer of the Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board should be included in the exercise. We, accordingly, direct that the Member Secretary, Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board to designate an Officer at the Regional Level within one week from today. Registry is directed to communicate the instant order to the Member Secretary, Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board for necessary compliance.
15. Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board also undertakes to communicate the instant order for necessary compliance.
16. The claims may be filed before the District Mining Officer within two weeks and within further two weeks, the District Mining Officer and the nominee of the Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board would examine the claims and submit a report to this Court in a tabular form.
17. It is clarified that wherever the consent to operate or the environment clearance granted to any particular unit was suspended merely because of the ban 8 imposed by this Court that would not be taken to be an impediment while examining the claim of any individual. Likewise, where any minor penalty has been imposed and amount has been duly deposited, the said aspect shall be specifically noted in the report to be submitted to this Court.
18. List in the week commencing 27.04.2026, by which date, a joint report by the District Mining Officer and the nominee of the Member Secretary, Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board, shall be brought on record by the Member Secretary, Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board, along with his affidavit.
IA Nos.15, 16 and 17 of 2025
19. Ms. Mamta Bisht, learned counsel has filed her Vakalatnama on file on behalf of Navin Parihar, applicant No.1 in IA No.17 of 2025.
20. Heard Mr. Shobhit Saharia and Ms. Mamta Bisht, learned counsel for the applicant(s) in support of the modification applications filed by the applicants in IA Nos.15, 16 and 17 of 2025. The interventions applications were filed seeking intervention in the present matter on the ground that stone crushing activity and transport of the raw material used in stone crushing has come to a standstill on basis of oral orders passed by the authorities to ensure 9 compliance of the order passed in present PIL on 06.01.2025, imposing ban on mining of soapstone in District Bageshwar.
21. The case of the applicants is that the stone crushing activity is not subject matter of consideration in the present PIL. It is only confined to mining of soapstone in District Bageshwar, but the respondent- authorities misinterpreting the interim order passed by this Court dated 06.01.2025, are restraining the applicants from carrying on stone crushing, for which, otherwise they possess all valid permissions.
22. The intervention applications filed by the applicants have since been allowed and they have been impleaded as party respondents. Ms. Mamta Bisht, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the said applicants, at the outset, states that she is not pressing prayer made in the modification application (IA No.17 of 2025) in respect of Navin Parihar, applicant No.1, as various adverse reports have been filed against him by the Court Commissioners. Accordingly, the prayers in the application (IA No.17 of 2025) are being considered only in respect of Applicant Nos.2 and 3.
23. It is submitted that the other applicants have 10 valid permissions and transport of raw material for use in crushing units has been stopped merely on the basis of oral orders passed by the respondent authorities to give effect to the interim order dated 06.01.2025.
24. It is pertinent to note that in respect of the applicants, a response affidavit has been filed by the District Mining Officer and wherein the stand taken is that certain irregularities were detected by her in MM11, i.e. e- ravanna which were got issued by the applicants for transporting the minerals. It is also disclosed that various notices have been issued to the applicants seeking their explanation and how and at what stage the proceedings are pending. In the affidavit filed by the District Mining Officer, it has not been disputed that the applicants are engaged in crushing of stones and boulders and are not carrying on any mining activity relating to soapstone.
25. In our considered opinion, the order of this Court dated 06.01.2025 restraining mining operations pertaining to soapstone in District Bageshwar would not be applicable to the crushing units which are engaged in entirely different kind of activity. As the District Mining Officer has inspected the crushing units and has only found some discrepancies in the e-ravanna, and for which, proceedings have already been initiated, therefore, we feel that while not interfering 11 with the said proceedings, it needs to be clarified that this Court in the present PIL is not concerned with the crushing of stone and boulders by any unit and the present PIL is only confined to the mining activities allegedly being carried out by various persons in District Bageshwar in respect of soapstone.
26. Accordingly, except in respect of Applicant No.1 in IA No.17 of 2025, namely, Navin Parihar, applications are disposed of clarifying that the interim order of this Court dated 06.01.2025 would not be an impediment for the applicants to run their stone crushers. However, in respect of any other discrepancy as may be noticed by the respondents, it shall be open to the District Mining Officer and concerned authorities to proceed in accordance with law.
27. Accordingly, applications are disposed of.
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dated: 18th March, 2026 NISHANT 12