[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
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
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
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
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)
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
