WPPIL/174/2024
2026 Latest Caselaw 1472 UK

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1472 UK
Judgement Date : 25 February, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Uttarakhand High Court

WPPIL/174/2024 on 25 February, 2026

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                  AT NAINITAL
     HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
                            AND
          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
                 25TH FEBRUARY, 2026
          WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 174 OF 2024
                  and connected cases
Presence :
Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned Amicus Curiae in WPPIL No. 174/2024.
Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Dharmendra
Barthwal & Mr. Himanshu Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant in
IA No. 90/2026.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing Counsel, along with Mr.
Gajendra Tripathi and Mr. Naveen Tewari, 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.
Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for respondent no. 72.
Ms. Priyanka Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent no. 68.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia & Ms. Mamta Bisht, learned counsel for
interveners in IA Nos. 15, 16, & 17 of 2025 and for respondent nos.
38, 58, 101, 90 & 63.
Ms. Meenakshi Parihar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 116, 121,
131, 150, 109, 111, 169, 47, 100, 23, 44 and 45.
Mr. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no. 76.
Mr. Pawan Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent no. 46..

ORDER :

(per Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)

1. Heard Shri Dushyant Mainali, learned Amicus Curiae,

Shri D.S. Patni, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the

applicant in IA No. 90/2025, and Shri C.S. Rawat, learned Chief

Standing Counsel on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand.

2. The applicant, who has been arrayed as respondent

no. 84 in the present Public Interest Litigation, has filed the

present application seeking permission of this Court to resume

mining operations in pursuance of provisional consent to

operate dated 16.02.2026, issued by the Uttarakhand Pollution

Control Board, in its favour, for a period of four months. The

permission is subject to the orders passed in the present PIL,

and any further order(s), as may be passed in SLP (C)

23540/2025 pending before the Supreme Court.

3. The mining operations in District Bageshwar were

suspended by order dated 06.01.2025, passed in the present

PIL.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the

Supreme Court, in its order dated 18.02.2026 passed in Special

Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 36897-36898/2025, has observed as

follows :

"Further, we are informed that only one mining lease holder, that is, M/s. Katiyar Mining and Industrial Corporation, out of the twenty nine mining lease holders, who were not levied with penalties, has secured the consent to operate and is presently functioning. It would be necessary for all the other mining lease holders, who have not been penalized, to ensure compliance with all the prescribed norms before they seek issuance of 'consents to operate' so as to resume functioning."

5. It is submitted that the license of the applicant was

never cancelled, nor has it ever been penalised, however, it

was only in view of the order passed by this Court on

06.01.2025 that the mining operations were suspended. He

submits that now the Supreme Court has left it open to the

lease holders to seek fresh consent to operate to resume the

functioning. The submission is that the Uttarakhand Pollution

Control Board, after ascertaining that all compliances have

been duly made, has issued the provisional consent to operate

and, therefore, the applicant may be granted permission to

resume the mining operations, in pursuance of the consent to

operate. He has also invited our attention towards paragraph

no. 9 of the order of this Court dated 16.06.2025, wherein the

case of the applicant, that it has not been found to be violating

any of the norms, has been duly recorded, and liberty was

granted to the applicant to seek necessary permissions to

enable it to resume the mining operations. For ready

reference, paragraph no. 9 of the aforesaid order is extracted

below :-

"9. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. D.S. Patni makes a representation on behalf of Almora Magnisite Company, stating that none of the reports, either by the Court Commissioner, or by the Additional Director, who initially inspected the mines and drew up a report on behalf of the Committee constituted by the State, indict the respondents of any violations in the matter of carrying out mining operations. It is a fact that, pursuant to the hearings in the instant PIL, the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) and the Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board has cancelled the licenses/ permissions/ clearances granted to all the mines in Bageshwar District. In that view, we grant liberty to the petitioner to make an application to both the authorities for issuance of licenses/ clearances/ consent to operate. If such an application is made, the same shall be considered by both the authorities. Both the authorities shall independently consider the application strictly in accordance with law, and if they find compliance with the law of the land, then the authorities may draw a report and place it before this Court."

6. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that the

permission granted to the applicant is only provisional in

nature, and is for four months only. He submits that, in case

any clarification is being made by this Court, it should also be

specifically mentioned that the resumption of mining activities

would be for four months only, on basis of consent to operate,

and during this period, the District Mining Officer would carry

out regular monitoring, in pursuance of orders passed in the

present PIL from time to time.

7. Having regard to the undisputed fact that neither the

applicant's license has been cancelled, nor it has ever been

saddled with any penalty, and provisional consent to operate