In PIL against stone crusher for NOC violation, court held Pollution Control Board necessary party to verify breach, directed petitioner to approach it, and extended status quo pending decision.

JUDGMENT :

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 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 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.

8. In view of the above admitted position, we find force in the submission that the Uttarakhand Pollution Control Boar