Monday, 13, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Shri Satnam Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 1169 UK

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1169 UK
Judgement Date : 18 February, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Uttarakhand High Court

Shri Satnam Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 18 February, 2026

                                                              2026:UHC:1074-DB


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                 AT NAINITAL
     HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
                           AND
          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY

                             18TH FEBRUARY, 2026

           WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 232 OF 2025

Shri Satnam Singh                                               ....Petitioner.
                                   Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others.                             ...Respondents


Counsel for the petitioner         :   Sri A.S. Rawat, learned Senior
                                       Counsel assisted by Sri Gaurav
                                       Paliwal, learned counsel.
Counsel for the respondents        :   Sri B.S. Parihar, learned Additional
                                       Chief Standing Counsel and Mr.
                                       Yogesh     Chandra   Tiwari,  learned
                                       Standing Counsel for the State of
                                       Uttarakhand.
                                       Dr.    Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned
                                       counsel for respondent No. 5.



JUDGMENT :

(Per Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)

1. Heard Sri A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Counsel assisted

by Sri Gaurav Paliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.S.

Parihar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Yogesh

Chandra Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the State of

Uttarakhand and Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel for

respondent No. 5.

2. The present petition, filed in public interest, is for

restraining the respondent-authorities from allowing the private

respondent, namely, M/s Pea Fowl Smart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

through its partners to construct stone crusher over a land situated

in Village Papadi and Sitapur Tanda, Tehsil Ram Nagar, District

2026:UHC:1074-DB

Nainital, as the case of the petitioner is that the construction is

contrary to the mining policy and would adversely affect the

environment.

3. The relief, aforesaid, has been sought principally on the

ground that the private respondent has violated the conditions of

the No Objection Certificate dated 27.12.2022 issued by the

Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Ramnagar, Nainital, on

basis of which, Consent to Establish the industry was granted in

favour of the private respondent by the Uttarakhand Pollution

Control Board.

4. It is noteworthy that before filing of the present writ

petition, another WPPIL bearing No. 61 of 2023 titled as 'Rohan

Chandrawati Tanay vs. State of Uttarakhand and others' was filed,

wherein also, various issues have been raised concerning the

establishment of the unit by the same private respondent arrayed

as respondent No. 6 to the said writ petition. In pursuance of the

orders passed in the said PIL, the Uttarakhand Pollution Control

Board carried-out inspection of the unit, which was being

commissioned by the private respondent and it noticed as many as

nine shortcomings. The said report has been brought on record in

WPPIL No. 61 of 2023, along with the covering letter of the

Regional Officer, Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board dated

06.03.2024.

5. After receipt of the report from the Pollution Control

Board, the private respondent sought time to remove the defects

2026:UHC:1074-DB

and to apply again for obtaining 'Consent to Operate' from the

Board. The same was granted to the private respondent vide order

dated 15.03.2024 and the time was extended by orders dated

07.05.2024, 02.07.2024 and 10.09.2024.

6. The submission of the learned counsel for the private

respondent is that in the present PIL, the petitioner, without

disclosing about the pendency of the earlier PIL and also without

impleading the Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board as a

respondent, has succeeded in obtaining an order of status quo on

23.12.2025. It is urged that as the order of status quo has been

passed and further construction activities have been stopped,

therefore, the private respondent is unable to remove the defects

pointed out by the Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board and

consequently also, could not seek fresh 'Consent to Operate' as

was permitted to be obtained in the connected PIL.

7. Sri A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

petitioner in the present PIL, is not in a position to dispute that No

Objection Certificate was issued by the Irrigation Department only

for the purpose of obtaining the 'Consent to Establish' the unit.

Consequently, the Pollution Control Board was having power to

examine the plea whether there was breach of any condition of the

No Objection Certificate, on basis of which, the 'Consent to

Establish' was granted.

2026:UHC:1074-DB

8. In view of the above admitted position, we find force in

the submission that the Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board was a

necessary party to the present proceedings.

9. For examining the veracity of the contention that there

has been violation of the conditions imposed by the Irrigation

Department while granting No Objection Certificate, a factual

inquiry would be needed.

10. Consequently, we leave it open to the petitioner to

approach the Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board with detailed

objection within a week from today, along with true copy of the

instant order. In the event, any such Application is filed by the

petitioner, the Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board shall examine

the same and take appropriate decision within next two weeks.

11. For a period of three weeks from today, the order of

status quo would continue to operate and it would abide by the

decision that would be taken by the Pollution Control Board in

pursuance of the instant order. In case, the complaint is found to

be baseless, the private respondent shall have right to proceed

further with the construction activity in pursuance of the 'Consent

to Establish' already granted in its favour by the Uttarakhand

Pollution Control Board. However, in case the complaint is found to

be correct, no further construction activity shall be done by the

private respondent.

12. Accordingly, the instant PIL stands disposed of.

2026:UHC:1074-DB

13. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of

accordingly.

_____________________ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.

___________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.

Dt: 18th February, 2026 Rathour

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH

PRAVINDRA COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323779d9e3aeb10 97d17dbb53d481cabd25946eed, postalCode=263001,

SINGH RATHOUR st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF92A40CC6179B 8E010331BA695239171F906FD5C45C4E8, cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2026.02.18 16:48:21 +05'30'

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter