Matri Sadan Jagjeetpur Kankhal vs Union Of India And Others on 7 April, 2026

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Ravindra Maithani, Pankaj Purohit

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
             Writ Petition (P.I.L) No. 15 of 2022
                         07th April, 2026
Matri Sadan Jagjeetpur Kankhal                     ........Petitioner

                               Versus

Union of India and others                   ............Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Brahmchari Sudhanand, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned C.G.S.C. for the Union of India/respondent
no.1.
Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General along with Mr. Puran Singh
Bisht, learned C.S.C. for the State.
Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.
Mr. V.K. Kapruwan, learned counsel for respondent no.5, through video
conferencing.
Mr. Saurav Adhikari, learned counsel for respondent no.10.
Mr. Chetan Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant in Impleadment
Application IA No.34 of 2025, through video conferencing.
Mr. Rajeev Bhatt, learned counsel for Central Pollution Control Board.
Ms. Pushpila Bisht and Ms. Menka Tripathi, learned counsel for the
Intervener.
Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel for the Intervener.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Coram : Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

This application has been filed by Shri Luxmi Narayan Stone Crusher (hereinafter referred to as "the Stone Crusher") seeking permission to remove the plant and machinery of Stone Crusher from the sealed premises, in the presence of respondents-authorities.

2. The petitioner has filed objections on it. (IA No.47 of 2026), though it is wrongly named as objections on the intervention application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant-the Stone Crusher submits that by virtue of this Court's order dated 30.07.2025, the applicant-Stone Crusher has been sealed and it is not operational. The applicant-Stone Crusher intends to remove the plant and machinery from the sealed premises.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicant-the Stone Crusher is a regular and multiple violator of environmental regulation norms and by virtue of the Polluter Pays Principle, he may be under the liability to compensate for the damages, which he has caused to the environment, therefore, he may not be permitted to remove the material from the premises. He further submits that the environmental compensation must be recovered by auctioning those plants and machinery.

5. On behalf of the State, IA No.35 of 2025 filed by the Stone Crusher is not objected.

6. By virtue of this Court's order dated 30.07.2025, this Court has directed the State Government to immediately seal 48 stone crushers till further orders. The Stone Crusher is admittedly one of such crushers, which has been sealed pursuant to this Court's order dated 30.07.2025. If the applicant-Stone Crusher intends to remove the plant and machinery, there seems to be no obstacle for grant of such permission.

7. In so far as, compensation under Polluter Pays Principle is concerned, admittedly, till date, this Court has not imposed any amount on the Stone Crusher for

environmental compensation. In future, if any occasion arises, the Court may deal with such issues. But, for that reason only, the application filed by the applicant-Stone Crusher may not be rejected, therefore, the application (IA No.35 of 2025) filed by applicant-Stone Crusher deserves to be allowed.

8. IA No.35 of 2025 is allowed.

9. Applicant-Stone Crusher is permitted to remove the plant and machinery from the premises, in the presence of District Mining Officer. The applicant- Stone Crusher is permitted only to remove the plant and machinery. He shall not remove any material which is lying in the premises. After removal of plant and machinery, the premises shall further be sealed by District Mining Officer. He shall submit a report after the removal of plant and machinery.

10. IA No.35/2025 and IA No.47 of 2026 stand disposed of accordingly.

11. Heard on Intervention Application (IA No.40 of 2026).

12. M/S Shiv Ganga Stone Crusher has moved this application with multiple prayers including the desealing of the applicant-Stone Crushers Unit permitting for its dismantling and also restoring electricity and water connection etc.

13. Objections have been filed by the petitioner by way of IA No.41 of 2026, stating therein, that the applicant- M/s Shiv Ganga Stone Crushers is liable under Polluter Pays Principle for environmental damages

caused by them and they are not entitled for any interim relief from the Court and the application be rejected.

14. Learned counsel for the applicant-the Stone Crusher submits that though there are multiple prayers in IA No.40 of 2026 but he limits his prayer to the extent of removal of plant and machinery of M/s Shiv Ganga Stone Crushers.

15. On behalf of the State, IA No.40 of 2025 filed by the Stone Crusher is not objected.

16. By virtue of this Court's order dated 30.07.2025, this Court has directed the State Government to immediately seal 48 stone crushers till further orders. The Stone Crusher is admittedly, one of such crushers, which has been sealed pursuant to this Court's order dated 30.07.2025. If the applicant-Stone Crusher intends to remove the plant and machinery, there seems to be no obstacle for grant of such permission.

17. In so far, as compensation under Polluter Pays Principle is concerned, admittedly, till date, this Court has not imposed any amount on the Stone Crusher for environmental compensation. In future, if any occasion arises, the Court may deal with such issues. But, for that reason only, the application filed by the applicant-Stone Crusher may not be rejected, therefore, the application (IA No.40 of 2025) filed by applicant-Stone Crusher deserves to be allowed.

18. IA No.40 of 2025 is allowed.

19. Applicant-Stone Crusher is permitted to

remove the plant and machinery from the premises in the presence of District Mining Officer. The applicant-Stone Crusher is permitted only to remove the plant and machinery. He shall not remove any material, which is lying in the premises. After removal of plant and machinery, the premises shall further be sealed by District Mining Officer. He shall submit a report after the removal of plant and machinery.

20. IA No.40/2025 and IA No.47 of 2026 stand disposed of accordingly.

Heard on IA No.37 of 2025.

21. This application has been filed by the applicant-M/s Gaumukh Stone Crushers for recalling this Court's order dated 18.08.2023, by which, an application for intervention filed by the applicant-M/s Gaumukh Stone Crushers was rejected. At that stage, this Court had observed "that effect of the orders that may be passed in the PIL may have its ramification, but each and every individual, who is remotely connected with it, may not be permitted to intervene in this petition. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to allow the intervention application. It deserves to be dismissed."

22. The petitioner has filed objections (IA No.42 of 2025) to the Recall Application (IA No.37 of 2025).

23. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant- M/s Gaumukh Stone Crushers submits that, initially, an application filed for intervention by the applicant-M/s Gaumukh Stone Crushers has been rejected on 18.08.2023, but, subsequently, by virtue of an order

dated 30.07.2025, the Stone Crusher has been sealed and at this stage, the applicant-M/s Gaumukh Stone Crushers was not heard.

24. It is argued that the ramifications of this PIL has fallen upon applicant-M/s Gaumukh Stone Crushers, therefore, they may be permitted to intervene in the matter.

25. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that to the extent of intervention, the applicant-M/s Gaumukh Stone Crushers may be heard. But, he would submit that the applicant-M/s Gaumukh Stone Crushers may not be permitted to raise such grounds which were taken before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

26. The grounds which the applicant-M/s Gaumukh Stone Crushers would take once permitted by this Court may not be speculated. The fact remains, the applicant-M/s Gaumukh Stone Crushers has been sealed, pursuant to this Court's order dated 30.07.2025. Definitely applicant-M/s Gaumukh Stone Crushers is to be heard in this matter.

27. Accordingly, IA No.37 of 2025 is allowed to the extent of recalling the order dated 18.08.2023. The applicant-M/s Gaumukh Stone Crushers shall be heard in this PIL.

28. Heard on IA No.43 of 2026.

29. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner does not propose to object the Intervention Application (IA No.43/2026).

30. Learned State Counsel seeks time to file objections.

31. Let objections be filed within two weeks.

32. List this case after four weeks.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 07.04.2026 07.04.2026