Uttarakhand High Court
WPPIL/174/2024 on 31 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY
31ST DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 174 OF 2024
With
WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.38 OF 2020
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 298 OF 2021
WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 137 OF 2022
WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 35 OF 2024
WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 202 OF 2024
WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 03 OF 2025
CLCON No.617 OF 2025
C528 No.2001 OF 2025
Presence :
Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned Amicus Curiae in WPPIL No.
174/2024.
Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, learned counsel for petitioner in WPPIL
No. 03/2025
Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned C.S.C. along with Mr. Gajendra Tripathi,
learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India.
Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.
Bhupendra Bora, learned counsel for respondent no.6 in PIL
No.3/2025.
Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the Uttarakhand
Pollution Control Board.
Dr. Aman Rab, learned counsel for the SEIAA through V.C.
Mr. Arvind Vashishta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rachit
Manglik, learned counsel for the applicant in C528 No.2001/2025.
Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for respondent no.72.
Mr. Nanganand S.S., learned Senior Counsel (through V.C.) assisted
by Ms. Priyanka Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent no.68.
Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for respondent no.123
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 (through V.C.), learned counsel for
respondent nos.76, 116, 121, 131, 150, 109, 111, 169, 46, 47, 100,
23, 44 and 45.
ORDER:(per Mr. G. Narendar C. J.) Heard Shri Nanganand S.S. in IA No.80 of 2025 and the learned C.S.C. along with DMO Bageshwar.
2. The genesis of the litigation lies in the unscientific 1 and rampant mining activities carried out over the leased and non-leased areas in Bageshwar District resulting in subsidence of land, development of cracks in the slopes, landslides and resulting in choking of water bodies, non- filling up of pits and use of very heavy machinery resulting in apparent ecological damage, impacting the agrarian life and the fauna and flora in the area. The suo motu writ petition was registered based on the reports by the print media. In the course of hearing, it came to light that the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) and Mining Department and the competent authority, while approving the mining lease had imposed a specific condition that mining shall be manual and semi-mechanical.
3. That it further came to light that the lease holders had approached the Directorate General of Mines Safety (DGMS), Ghaziabad seeking permission to use heavy machinery contrary to the conditions imposed in the mining lease and the conditions imposed on environment clearance certificate issued by the SEIAA, the DGMS invoking provisions of Section 106(2)(b) of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 (MMR 1961) proceeded to issue permission to deploy heavy and very heavy machineries leading to situations which has proved disastrous for the ecology and topography of the region.
4. The State Government on registration of the suo motu PIL constituted a State level committee headed by the 2 Additional Director (Department of Geology and Mining). The Additional Director after visiting 61 mines submitted a report with regard to the 61 mines. Subsequently, the Additional Director, Shri Anil recused himself expressing inability to take forward the work of the committee. Thereafter, it appears that the State Government replaced him with the Joint Director (Department of Geology and Mining).
5. In the interregnum, this Court had notified the DGMS to demonstrate his authority in law to override the conditions imposed under the mining lease and the SEIAA. In reply to which, the DGMS filed an affidavit that neither the deed imposing the prohibition nor the environment clearance certificate imposing a prohibition on use of heavy machinery was placed before him and that the applications were considered in isolation.
6. In fact, the Directorate General of Mines Safety, Government of India on 21.02.2025 furnished parawise remarks and in paragraph no.11 of the report submitted to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court in terms of page no.27 of the said report, has stated as under:
Para Point Raised in the Reply
No. Order
11. Learned Amicus Curiae It is to humbly submit that the Director
has place a compilation General, Mines Safety, (DGMS),
of papers, which would Ghaziabad Region, not issued any order
include proceedings of which is contrary to the condition
the Director General, imposed by the State Environment
Mines Safety, Ghaziabad Impact Assessment Authority,
3
Region, dated constituted by the Central Government
10.12.2020, whereby the in exercise of powers under Section
Director General, Mines 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act.
Safety by invoking the
DGMS has worked in accordance with
provisions of Regulation
the provisions of the Mines, Act, 1952 106(2)(b) of the [An Act to amend and consolidate the Metalliferous Mines law relating to the regulation of labour Regulations, 1961, has and safety in mines] (35 of 1952), and been pleased to permit the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, use of heavy machinery 1961 (Gazette published vide in the mine operations, G.S.R.337, dated the 18th October, which is contrary to the 1960) under 57 of the Mines, Act, condition imposed by the 1952. Further, it is humbly submitting State Environment that;
Impact Assessment Authority, constituted by A. Neither an Owner / Owners (while the Central Government making. an application * under The in exercise of powers Regulation 106(2)(b) of the under Section 3(3) Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961) Environment Protection nor the District Mining Officer nor any Act. other authority of the State Government nor any other concerned had brought this fact, that there is
"prohibition of heavy machineries in mines" to this Directorate.
[* Owner Application with reference to compilation of papers, which would include proceedings of the Director General, Mines Safety, Ghaziabad Region, dated 10.12.2020 is enclosed as Annexure A] Therefore, the owner /s have hidden the facts that there is "prohibition of heavy machineries in mines", while making application under Regulation 106(2)(b) of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 and kept this office in dark.
B. The Regulation 106(2)(b) of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961, empowers this Directorate to specify the working conditions in mines to ensure safety and, subjected to following general conditions that;
"This permission is being issued specifically under the regulations mentioned above (The Regulation 106(2)(b) of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961) without prejudice to any other provision of law which may be or may become applicable any time".
Thus, clearly means that, the mine owner /s have to follow all other applicable laws, i.e. the mine owner's duty to follow the condition imposed by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, constituted by the Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act.
Hence, the permission issued under 4 these regulations does not authorise the mine owner's / operator's to use heavy machinery in contrary to the condition imposed by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, constituted by the Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act. The.
The provision of Regulation 106(2)(b) of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 produced below-
"Where in any mine or part it is proposed to work by a system of deepрhole blasting and/or with the help of heavy machinery for its digging, excavation and removal in such manner as would not permit compliance with the requirement of sub-regulation (1) the owner, agent or manager shall, not less than 60 days before starting such work, give notice in writing of the method of working to the Chief Inspector and the Regional Inspector; and no such work shall be commenced or carried out except in accordance with such conditions as the Chief Inspector may specify by an order in writing. Every such notice shall be in duplicate, and shall give the details of the method of working including the precautions that are proposed to be taken against the danger from falls of sides and material."
In recent cases of the permissions, a condition stipulated that, " if at any time any one of the conditions, subject to which this permission / exemption has been granted, is violated or not complied with, this permission / exemption shall be deemed to have been revoked with immediate effect."
Further also that, " This permission / relaxation shall remain valid for a period of 05 (Five) years from the date (DD/MM/YYYY) of issue of this letter or validity of Consent to Operate (CTO) or Environmental Clearance (EC) or validity of the lease granted by the competent authority expires, whichever is earlier."
This mandates the owner / s of the mine /s to operate mine with valid EC conditions. In contrary to EC conditions, the said permission deemed withdrawn with immediate effect."
5
7. In sub-paragraph B, they have clarified that the mine owners are required to follow all other applicable laws and that the permission is granted with a caveat that the permission so granted is without prejudice to the provisions of law which maybe or become applicable at any time.
8. In sub-paragraph A, it is averred that neither the owner or applicants invoking regulations 106 (2)(b) of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations nor the State authority had brought to the notice of the DGMS regarding the prohibition of use of heavy machinery.
9. In fact, this Court while addressing the issue has passed an order on 17.02.2025 as under:
"11. Learned Amicus Curiae has place a compilation of papers, which would include proceedings of the Director General, Mines Safety, Ghaziabad Region, dated
10.12.2020, whereby the Director General, Mines Safety by invoking the provisions of Regulation 106(2)(b) of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961, has been pleased to permit use of heavy machinery in the mine operations, which is contrary to the condition imposed by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, constituted by the Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act.
12. Though the matter was brought to our notice on the last date of hearing, we specifically granted an opportunity to learned counsels to place material, which would demonstrate that the Mines Act, 1952, or the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961, empowers the Mines Inspector or the Director General, Mines Safety to grant any permission contrary to the prohibition imposed under the Environment Clearance Certificate issued by the competent authority, i.e. the Committee constituted under Section 3(3) of the Act.
13. Today, learned counsels place reliance on the provisions of Regulation 106(2)(b) of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961.
14. We have perused the provision. It nowhere enables the authority under the Mines Act, 1952, or the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 to dilute or modify or set-aside the condition imposed under the Environment Clearance Certificate. Prima facie none of the provisions enable the authority under the aforesaid two Acts to sit in appeal or judgment, over the certificate issued by the competent authority under the Environment (Protection) Act. In fact, 6 the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, more particularly, Section 24, prima facie, would demonstrate that the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act shall have overriding effect over the provisions of other Acts. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Bageshwar dated 10.01.2025 reported seizure of 124 heavy machineries from various mines. This clearly constitutes violation of the condition imposed under the Environment Clearance Certificate. The violation has resulted in grave degradation of the environment. This observation is fortified by the report of the State Level Expert Committee headed by Mr. Anil Kumar, holding the post of Additional Director, Department of Mines and Geology, which has been submitted by the State Government, wherein it has been found by the State Level Expert Committee 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 also. The violation of these conditions appears to be very widespread, which observation stands supported by the seizure of huge number of heavy machineriesby the Superintendent of Police. 15. In that view, we are of the view that the interim order prohibiting continuation of mining activities requires to be continued till further orders and 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.
16. The Chairman of the S t a t e Level Expert Committee shall forthwith collect the data regarding the transport permit obtained by various mine operators, and also place the data relating to the mineral that has been mined by each of the mine operators. The mine operators shall, in support of their application(s) for modification/ recall, place all details including the documents, such as the applications for grant of lease, the proceedings of various authorities under the Rules, like No Objection Certificate, Environment Clearance Certificate, Consent to Operate, the proceedings of the Government sanctioning the lease, details of public hearings conducted under the Environment (Protection) Act, for immediate consideration.
17. Learned Amicus Curiae is directed to array the Director General, Mines Safety as a party respondent.
18. Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel is directed to take notice for Director General, Mines Safety.
19. The Director General, Mines Safety shall place on record how many permissions have been granted by his office contrary to the conditions imposed under the Environment (Protection) Act.
20. A copy of this order be communicated to the Director General, Mines Safety by way of e-mail ([email protected]).
21. List on 24.02.2025 at 03:15 PM."
10. The said order has not been called in question. In paragraph no.19, it is categorically stated that no permission contrary to the conditions imposed under the 7 Environment Protection Act has been issued by the Directorate. The concluding paragraph of the report submitted by the DGMS is as under:
"It is humbly submitted to Your Lordship that Director General, Mines Safety, Ghaziabad Region, has upheld the sanctity of law and does not appear have overriding effect over the provisions of other Acts and further that, did not issue any order which is contrary to other Acts It has complied with the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952 and Regulations made thereunder. Therefore, it is submitted that the DGMS, Ghaziabad may kindly be exempted from being arrayed as a party respondent."
11. In fact, the personal affidavit of the officer has also been filed in the Court on 25.02.2025 wherein he has categorically asserted in paragraph no.3 that some of the mines owners have not brought to his notice the conditions imposed by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority constituted under the Environment Protection Act and in the concluding sentence of the said paragraph, it is deposed that the mines have to be operated with valid EC conditions and any permission contrary to the EC conditions is deemed to have been withdrawn with immediate effect.
12. After the order by this Court prohibiting continuance of mining operations in the district, the State also formed a committee headed by the District Magistrate and it appears that the committee/team formed by the District Magistrate has visited various mines in the District. Pursuant to the directions of the State Government, the committee appears not to have submitted the report to the State Government. On query, learned Chief Standing 8 Counsel and DMO would submit that the report has not been submitted to the State Government. It has been almost a year since this impasse started.
13. This Court has on several occasions permitted the mines owners to individually canvass their cases, but the mine owners/ operators have failed to address arguments on merits, though the Hon'ble Apex Court in the SLP's filed by the respondents directed expeditious hearing. At this stage, the DMO submits that she vaguely remembers that the District Magistrate has forwarded a summarized copy of the report to the Government and the fate of which is not known. The fact remains that the Himalayan Range is known as a young mountain and the State of Uttarakhand has a history of seismic activities and landslides. The entire Himalayan range has been categorized as Zone-6 after a seismological study indicating that Zone-6 is the highest risk prone area i.e. prone to seismic activities.
14. In fact, the Amicus Curiae has furnished a report drawn up by the Department of Unified State of Uttar Pradesh which has extensively considered the various aspects and detailed recommendations have been made. The report is not merely extensive but also informative and the manner and method in which the report has been prepared and the various parameters considered to prepare the report reflect insight and in depth knowledge. 9
15. The fulcrum of the issue is bringing about the balance in the light of the principles of sustainable development. In that view, we are of the opinion that keeping in account the failure of the State to place any material before this Court to ensure scientific mining and recommend any preventive measures, this Court deems it necessary to form a committee consisting of officers with subject knowledge and who are members of independent institutions to make a study and submit a report. In this direction, the Court directs the Director, CSIR to depute a scientist/technologist who is an expert in environment impact and risk assessment. We further direct the Director Wadia Institute to depute an expert in natural hazards and seismology. We further direct the Director G.B. Pant Institute to depute an expert. We also direct the Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India, Dehradun to depute services of an experienced Geologist. The nominations shall be done expeditiously at any rate within one week of receipt of a copy of this order.
16. Apart from the above, we request Professor Ajay Singh Rawat, who is an acclaimed expert on the fauna and flora of the Himalayan Range to be a part of the team. The team shall undertake inspection of the District Bageshwar and, in particular, shall commence with an inspection of the mines and make recommendations for sustainable mining, provided the environment and topography permits the kind 10 of mining.
17. The expert body shall also recommend the method and manner of mining. The machinery that may be permitted to be used in the mining areas while so describing the machinery the capacity/ horse powers of the machines may also be detailed.
18. Nextly, all the mine owners shall submit a list of the labourers employed by them and the said list of labourers shall be covered under the ESI and PF. They shall not engage any labourer who is not registered with the labour authorities, particularly, the Labour Welfare Statutes.
19. As regards the expenses to be incurred by the Committee, the expenses and all facilities, including manpower, vehicles, accommodations, shall be provided by the State Government and the expenses so incurred shall be recovered by the Government from the respective mine owners. Any mine operator or mine owner wishing to have their mines examined on priority may make a separate request and the Committee may assign priority in accordance with their working plan that it may devise.
20. We request the Committee to submit interim reports once in every 15 days commencing from 15th January, 2026. If any date specified is a holiday or is declared a holiday subsequently then the report may be submitted to the Court through the DMO, Ms. Nazia Hassan 11 on the following working day. The Committee will also be assisted by Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned Amicus Curiae.
21. We direct the Department of Mines and Geology to release interim payment of ₹2 lakh to the Amicus Curiae, who has been zealously assisting the Court over the last year. The Committee may consult Shri Dushyant Mainali, learned Amicus Curiae with regard to any legal necessities or requirements.
22. The DMO is appointed as the convener of the Expert Committee. The applications for modifications by various mine owners and mine operators would be considered as and when the reports are considered along with the interim reports that the Committee may submit. The Registrar Judicial to communicate this order forthwith to the Director, CSIR; the Director Wadia Institute; the Director G.B. Pant Institute and the Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India, Dehradun by email. Application No.69/2025
23. Application No.69/2025 has been filed by the Secretary, Industrial Development (Mining), Government of Uttarakhand wherein in paragraph no.3, it has been stated that the work of widening the road over a total length of 33 km from km 136.00 to 169.00 (Bilauna to Kanagadhchhina) of the Rameswar Gangolihat-Berinag Chaukori-Kanda- 12 Bageshwar-Takula-Almora road under National Highway (NH) 309A is being carried out by National Highways Division, PWD Ranikhet, District Almora, subsequent to the sanction of costs amounting to 472.23 crore by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, vide letter number RO/UK/NH-309A/2021-22/Ranikhet/PKG- 4(C.NO206975), dated 31.03.2022.
24. Learned counsel for the State submits that the said road acts as a primary road for all supplies in Bageshwar from the nearby area such as Haldwani, Almora etc. and the said road also plays an important role in terms of its strategic defence purpose as the said motor road leads to the border area of Nepal and China.
25. Learned counsel for the State submits that the mobile stone crusher plant is as such required to be established for construction of said road. He further submits that the District Mining Officer (DMO) was directed to submit the GPS location of the said proposed mobile crusher unit and the details have been provided. The said details provided by the District Mining Officer are as hereunder:
"
Mobile Crusher Details of Mobile Stone Crusher S.No.
1. Name and location of Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd.- Shivalik Buildtech Pvt.
the Mobile Stone Ltd. (J.V.), A-1/A, 2nd Floor Sector 16, Noida (U.P.) Pin Crusher Plant 201301. (Contractor for NH-PWD).
The Mobile Stone Crusher Plant is established in Khasra No.202, Category 1(Ka), having an area of 0.048 hectares in the Z.A.L.M. Khata No.00093 of Village Karalagaon, Tehsil Kaphaligair of District Bageshwar. Lat: 29.753232⁰ Long:
79.760552⁰ 13 1(2) Order Number/ Office Order No.03/Tees-42/Mo.Sto. K. Pla./2023-24 Date of sanction for dated 08 July 2024 from the Collector/ District the Mobile Stone Magistrate.
Crusher Plant permit:
1(3) Area of Mobile 0.048 hectares. Lat:
Stone Crusher Plant 29.753232⁰ Long: 79.760552⁰ and Coordinate of the plant
26. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no objection to the said prayer made by the respondent.
The said submission is placed on record.
27. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the application filed by the State is allowed. The respondents are permitted to establish the said mobile stone crusher unit at the GPS location submitted by the DMO.
28. List on 05.01.2026.
(G. NARENDAR, C. J.) (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 31.12.2025 KK/SS 14