Uttarakhand High Court
Matri Sadan vs Union Of India And Others on 30 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Ravindra Maithani, Pankaj Purohit
Order reserved on: 23.06.2025
Order delivered on: 30.07.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (PIL) No. 15 of 2022
Matri Sadan .........Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others ......Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:
Mr. Brahmchari Sudhanand Aka Saurabh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, C.S.C. with Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Brief Holder for the
State.
Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent no.1/MOEF.
Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan, Advocate for the respondent no.5.
Mr. Saurav Adhikari, Advocate for the respondent no.10.
Mr. Rajeev Bhatt, Advocate for the Central Pollution Control Board.
Dr. Manish Singhvi, Senior Advocate (through video conferencing) assisted
by Mr. Mayank Singh, Advocate for the applicant in Intervention
Application IA No.33 of 2025.
Dr. Pinky Anand, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chetan Joshi and Mr.
Rajeev Ranjan, Advocates for the applicant in Impleadment Application IA
No.34 of 2025.
Mr. Aman Rab, Advocate for the SEIAA.
ORDER
Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Per: Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition
challenging the ongoing mining activities in the river Ganga along
the stretch from Raiwala to Bhogpur, despite the ban imposed by
Central Pollution Control Board (“the CPCB”) vide order dated
06-12-2016 which was subsequently imposed by National Mission
1
for Clean Ganga (“the NMCG”) vide order dated 09-10-2018 under
Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
2. During the course of hearing of this petition, on
11.06.2025, it was brought to the notice of the Court that stone
crushers, which were within 5 Km from river bed had once been
closed. On that date, this Court observed as follows:-
“During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that, in fact, the stone crushers were closed
within the radius of 5 Km from the river bed. He would submit
that pursuant to one such order passed in WPPIL No. 62 of 2016,
48 stone crushers had already been closed, but they were de-
sealed without any further order of this Court. He would also
submit that, in fact, National Green Tribunal has also passed
directions for shifting the stone crushers from within 5 Km limit of
river bed. He also refers to various orders of CPCB and NMCG.
Referring a letter dated 16.02.2015 of the District Magistrate,
Dehradun, he argued that, in fact, all the stone crushers within 5
Km radius of river bed should be closed so as to prevent illegal
mining.”
And then, the Court posed a question as to why stone crushers
may not be shifted beyond 5 Km from river bed? The matter was
thereafter heard on this aspect.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite
the aforementioned orders being in existence and have also been
directed to be complied with by the Division Bench of this Court
vide order dated 03-05-2017 in WPPIL No. 62 of 2016, Pawan
Kumar Saini & another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (“the
2
first petition”) and also by order dated 05-09-2018 in the first
petition and WPPIL No. 146 of 2017, Dr. Vijay Verma Vs. Union of
India and others (“the second petition”), the State Government and
District Magistrate, Haridwar had flouted these orders in
connivance with mining mafias. He further submits that when the
order dated 03-05-2017 passed in the first petition was not
complied with by the State Government, a contempt petition being
CLCON No.128 of 2017, Matri Sadan Jagjeetpur Vs. Shri S.
Ramaswami and others was filed. Thereafter, in compliance of the
said order of 03-05-2017, an Office Memorandum No.1252/VII-
1/2017/37-Writ/17 dated 24-08-2017 (“The OM dated
24.08.2017”) was issued by the administrative department banning
48 stone crushers from operating on the Raiwala to Bhogpur
stretch of river Ganga. Learned counsel further submits that this
Court, vide its order dated 14-09-2017, allowed review of its earlier
order dated 03-05-2017, passed in the first petition, thereby
restoring the original petition to the file, but, made it expressly clear
that order dated 06-12-2016 passed by the CPCB are intact and
are not interfered with. He submits that in spite of the clear
directives of this Court, while allowing the review petition and the
legal advice rendered by Additional Law Secretary on 06.10.2017
that the ban imposed by the OM dated 24.08.2017 on the 48 stone
crushers cannot be lifted, the State Government took the opinion
from Advocate General, who in turn misinterpreted the Court’s
order dated 14-09-2017, passed in the first petition and advised
that the ban could now be lifted and in furtherance of this advice
the State Government de-sealed the 48 stone crushers. He submits
that these 48 stone crushers should be immediately sealed as they
are within 5 Km of the bank of river Ganga in the area.
3
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues
that despite the mandatory orders passed by various authorities
and directions to follow these orders in letter in spirit by this Court,
the Government has permitted mining in the prohibited areas vide
Office Memorandum dated 11.02.2021 and the District Magistrate,
Haridwar vide order dated 01.11.2021 and environmental
clearances were issued in favour of the Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation though with the rider that the mining
shall be limited to the area not covered under the order of NMCG
dated 09.10.2018. This Court on 16.03.2022, had stayed all mining
activities in the area. He further submits that vide order 04.04.2024
the Court appointed two Court Commissioners, who after visiting
the site on 07.04.2024, submitted a report on 30.04.2024 reporting
that Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation has contravened
the conditions of environmental clearance and has also engaged in
illegal mining. They also reported a freshly compacted patch of land
with a lot of tyre marks, huge ponds that were created in the land
that was dug up to the extent of 7 meters, use of tractor, trailer
with no number plate laden with river bed material, all of which
clearly pointed towards large scale illegal mining going on in
Haridwar. He also referred to the report of NMCG dated
29.05.2024, which rejected all other reports favouring mining on
the grounds of lack of credibility and scientific consideration.
6. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that stay
has been granted by this Hon’ble Court on the basis of the order
dated 09.10.2018 of the NMCG, which in turn has relied upon
order dated 06.12.2016 passed by the CPCB, which is passed on
the basis of misrepresentation of the petitioner stating that State
Government has imposed ban on mining, which is not true and the
4
State Government has never imposed any ban on mining. He
further submits that had there been a ban imposed by the State
Government, the petitioner would have submitted a document,
which he has not. He further submits that the NMCG/CPCB has
only directed to ban illegal mining and not mining per se. He
further relied upon the State Environment Impact Assessment
Authority, which, on the basis of inspection, drone survey, satellite
images and other available reports opined that if mining be banned,
the natural sand deposition will cause submergence of agricultural
land and villages near Haridwar. Thereafter, it opined mining as an
essential activity, but to be carried out strictly and on scientific
terms. He also submitted that Court Commissioners’ report also
brings out the fact that they did not find anyone mining the sand or
boulders near the Ganga except landless villagers of the nearby
villages. He further submits that mining in the State of
Uttarakhand is regulated by the Mining Policy of 2021 and is also
regulated by the State Government with the help of the District
Anti-illegal Mining Force, UK Mining Enforcement Team, CM
Helpline and the Complaint Redressal Forum which ensures no
illegal mining takes place. He further argued that mining provides
employment opportunity in a hilly State like Uttarakhand and
banning it would cause severe unemployment.
7. Learned counsel for the interveners i.e., stone crusher
plants submit that they are the persons affected by the orders
passed in this Writ petition, therefore, they ought to be heard. They
further submitted that the CPCB order only directs closure of the
illegal mining and not closure of stone crushers, which are
operating after complying with regulations and having valid license.
They further submit that mining was ordered to be stopped only
5
along the bank of the river Ganga and was nowhere directed to be
stopped in the radius of 5 km near river Ganga. They also raised
objection on the NMCG’s order dated 09.10.2018 stating that it was
not based on any expert report or upon any independent
assessment, rather it is based upon a ban on mining imposed by
the State Government, which, as a matter of fact, was never
actually imposed by the State. Learned counsel for the interveners
vehemently argued that the principle of natural justice has not
been followed and the orders affecting them were passed without
giving mandatory notice to them as provided in Rule 4 of the
Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 (“the Rules”). They submitted
that Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments has held that
prior notice has to be given to the party, who is going to be visited
with adverse consequences.
8. Before proceeding further, it would be apt to note as to
what was laid down by the CPCB in its order dated 06.12.2016 and
what is contained in the order dated 09.10.2018 of the NMCG?
9. The factual context relates back to the judgment dated
26.05.2011 passed by this Court in Special Appeal No. 3 of 2011,
Matri Sadan Vs. Himalaya Stone Crusher Pvt. Ltd. and others (“the
appeal”). The appeal pertains to the closure of the stone crusher
near river Ganga. Having received various recommendations, the
State Government, by an order dated 10.12.2010, stopped the
mining and crushing activities in Kumbh Mela area in Haridwar.
Pursuant to which, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, on 14.12.2010,
directed the stone crushers to close their activities. That order was
challenged in this Court and by an interim order of writ court, the
operation of Government Order dated 10.12.2010 and order
6
14.12.2010 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate was stayed. The appeal
was against the order of the writ court. In the appeal, this Court
discussed the various directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on
this aspect and in para 13 of the judgment in appeal the Court
observed, “at the cost of repetition, this stone crusher cannot
be allowed to run as such because its very existence in the area
is against what has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of M.C. Mehta (supra).” Finally the appeal was allowed and
the Court observed as follows:-
“15. Special Appeal No.03 of 2011 is allowed with cost
throughout and impugned order dated 29.12.2010 is vacated and
Writ Petition No.2137 (M/S) of 2010 is dismissed. With the result,
the order of the Government to close down this crusher at the
present location, is sustained. District Magistrate, Haridwar will
take appropriate steps in the light of the observations as have been
made by us in the judgment.”
10. Pursuant to the order dated 26.05.2011, passed int he
appeal, On 06.02.2015, the District Magistrate, Haridwar in a
communication to the Director, Mining and Minerals, Uttarakhand
suggested that if stone crushers within 5 Km from the bank of river
Ganga are stopped, it will help in stopping illegal mining. In a
separate proceedings, the CPCB on 06.12.2016, took note of this
communication dated 16.02.2015 of the District Magistrate,
Haridwar, the order dated 15.04.2015 of the National Green
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi passed in the matter OA No.
117 of 2015 and also considered the representations received in
MoEF & CC Government of India and various other
communications and observed as follows:-
“NOW THEREFORE, in view of the above and in exercise of
powers delegated to the Chairman, CPCB under Section 5 of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, under are directed to comply
7
with the following directions:
1) District Magistrate, Hardwar and Senior
Superintendent of Police, Hardwar shall ensure that the
decision of Uttarakhand Government banning mining in
Raiwala-to-Bhogpur stretch of Ganga River in Hardwar
is strictly complied and no illegal mining takes place in
this stretch of Ganga River.
2) In view of the required action needed to stop illegal
mining communicated by District Magistrate, Hardwar
in letter dated 16.2.2016, Principal Secretary –
Industrial Development, Government of Uttarakhand
shall issue necessary orders immediately for closure of
operation of stone crushers/pulverisers as applicable
along the banks of Ganga River in Raiwala-to-Bhogpur
stretch in Haridwar.
3) On issuance of necessary orders from State
Government, District Magistrate, Hardwar and senior
Superintendent of Police, Hardwar shall immediately
ensure closure of stone crushers/pulverisers as
aforesaid in direction 2 above.”
11. Para 2 of the above directions categorically relates to
the communication dated 16.02.2015 of the District Magistrate,
Haridwar made to the Director, Mining and Minerals Uttarakhand,
which has suggested closure of stone crushers within 5 Km from
the bank of river so as to stop illegal mining.
12. The CPCB in its order dated 06.12.2016 also noted the
letter dated 16.02.2015 of the District Magistrate, Haridwar as
follows:-
“(iii) District Magistrate letter dated 16.2.2016 to Director,
Mining and Minerals, Uttarakhand suggesting that if stone
crushers within 5 Km from bank of river are stopped it will
help in stopping illegal mining; and”
13. Considering all the factors on 06.12.2016, the CPCB
8
directed the District Magistrate to issue necessary order
immediately for closure of operation of stone crushers/pulverisers
as applicable along the banks of Ganga River in
Raiwala-to-Bhogpur stretch in Haridwar.
14. The order dated 06.12.2016 of the CPCB was
subsequently modified on 22.03.2019. Meanwhile, the NMCG took
up the matter and on 09.10.2018 took note of the communication
dated 16.02.2015 of the District Magistrate, Haridwar, addressed to
the Director Mining and Minerals, State of Uttarakhand and various
other material and passed the following directions:-
“Now, therefore, in view of above and in exercise of power
vested to NMCG under para 8 of the Authorities Order, 2016, it is
directed to comply with the following directions:
1. Ensure that the decision of Uttarakhand Government
banning mining in Raiwala – to – Bhogpur stretch of
River Ganga in Haridwar is strictly complied and no
illegal mining takes place in this stretch of River Ganga
within the provision of judgment of Hon’ble NGT in the
matter OA No. 10/2015 dt. 15 April, 2015.
2. District Magistrate, Haridwar shall issue necessary
orders immediately and ensure compliance of the order
for closure of operation of stone crushers/pulverisers,
as applicable along the banks of Ganga in Raiwala to
Bhogpur stretch in Haridwar.
3. Submit the compliance status of the direction issued in
paragraph 2 above to NMCG on quarterly basis.”
15. Para 2 of above instruction of the NMCG’s order dated
09.10.2018 also relates to the suggestion which was given by the
District Magistrate, Haridwar on 16.02.2015 to the Director, Mining
and Minerals, State of Uttarakhand.
9
16. In fact, contents of the letter dated 16.02.2015 of the
District Magistrate, Haridwar has been noted by the NMCG in its
order dated 09.10.2018. It also categorically reiterates that the
stone crushers/pulverisers situated within 5 Km from the bank of
river Ganga in Raipur to Bhogpur stretch were to be stopped as
suggested by the District Magistrate, Haridwar in his
communication dated 16.02.2015.
17. The CPCB had though modified its order dated
06.12.2016 by another order dated 22.03.2019. But again, by its
order dated 23.04.2019, the CPCB directed the State of
Uttarakhand to ensure that the order dated 09.10.2018 of the
NMCG is strictly complied with.
18. In the appeal, on 26.05.2011, this Court has upheld
closure of stone crushers in the area and had directed the District
Magistrate to take appropriate steps. At the cost of repetition, it may
be stated that the District Magistrate on 16.02.2015 had suggested
for closure of stone crushers within 5 Km from river Ganga so as to
stop illegal mining. This suggestion was upheld by the CPCB in its
order dated 06.12.2016. This suggestion of the District Magistrate
was also accepted by the NMCG on 09.10.2018 and finally, the
CPCB in its order dated 23.04.2019 observed that the order dated
09.10.2018 of the NMCG is to be strictly followed. Which means the
stone crushers falling within 5 Km distance from the river Ganga
were to be stopped so as to stop illegal mining. The directions were
issued by the NMCG and the CPCB under Section 5 of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. These directions were never
challenged.
10
19. The enforcement of these directions is another aspect.
In the instant case, this Court is examining the legality of
Government Orders which according to the petitioner were issued in
defiance to the order dated 06.12.2016 of the CPCB and the order
09.10.2018 of the NMCG.
20. In the first petition on 03.05.2017, this Court decided
the writ petition observing that as long as the order of the CPCB is
in force, the same shall be enforced. A review application was filed
and that order dated 14.09.2017 was recalled by this Court in the
first petition. But, this Court observed as follows:-
“We have only reviewed our judgment, by which we have
given a positive direction to the State to implement the directions
of the Central Pollution Control Board. Reviewing of our judgment
should not be understood as our having, in any way, interfered
with the direction given by the Central Pollution Control Board
dated 06.12.2016 or any of the further communication issued by
it. We must not be taken to have pronounced on any of the
contentions of the parties in regard to the said order. We make it
very clear that if any person is aggrieved by the said order, this
judgment will not stand in the way of the said person/Authority
calling in question the said order in appropriate forum. We make it
clear that allowing of the review petitions should not be treated as
our pronouncement on the enforceability of the said order.”
21. The first and second petitions were finally decided by
this Court on 05.09.2018 and on that date, the Court categorically
directed the State to comply with the order dated 06.12.2016 in
letter and spirit till it is revoked. The fact remains that the order
dated 06.12.2016 issued by the CPCB, in fact, has never been
revoked because this order was modified on 22.03.2019, but in
between on 09.10.2018 the NMCG issued similar order. Finally, on
24.03.2019, the CPCB directed that the order of the NMCG dated
11
09.10.2018 is to be enforced. This sequence of events categorically
establishes that there is an existing order of the NMCG under
Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, on
09.010.2018 to the effect that the stone crushers falling within 5
Km distance from the bank of river Ganga are to be stopped and
they were, in fact, stopped by the OM dated 24.08.2017. They were
48 in numbers. The order records that pursuant to order dated
03.05.2017 passed in the first petition as well as in view of the
order dated 16.12.2016 of the CPCB, the stone crushers are to be
closed.
22. In the first and second petitions, the order of the CPCB
dated 06.12.2016 or the order of the NMCG dated 09.10.2018 have
never been revoked. In fact, as stated, on 05.09.2018, the first and
second petitions were finally decided with the observations to the
respondents/State to comply with the direction dated 06.12.2016 of
the CPCB in letter and spirit, till it is revoked. Those directions
were never revoked.
23. On behalf of the intervener, it is also argued that the
directions were issued in defiance to Rule 4 of the Rules, because
the stone crusher owners were never given any notice before issuing
directions for closure of the stone crushers This Rule is as follows:-
“4. Directions.- (1) Any direction issued under section 5
shall be in writing.
(2) The direction shall specify the nature of action to be
taken and the time within which it shall be complied with by the
person, officer or the authority to whom such direction is given.
(3-a) The person, officer or authority to whom any direction
is sought to be issued shall be served with a copy of the proposed
direction and shall be given an opportunity of not less than fifteen
12
days from the date of service of a notice to file with an officer
designated in this behalf the objections, if any, to the issue of the
proposed direction.
(3-b) Where the proposed direction is for the stoppage or
regulation of electricity or water or any other service affecting the
carrying on any industry, operation or process and is sought to be
issued to an officer or an authority, a copy of the proposed
direction shall also be endorsed to the occupier of the industry,
operation or process, as the case may be, and objections, if any,
filed by the occupier with an officer designated in this behalf shall
be dealt with in accordance with the procedures under sub-rules
(3-a) and (4) of this rule:
Provided that no opportunity of being heard shall be given
to the occupier if he had already been heard earlier and the
proposed direction referred to in sub-rule (3-b) above for the
stoppage or regulation of electricity or water or any other service
was the resultant decision of the Central Government after such
earlier hearing.
(4) The Central Government shall within a period of 45 days
from the date of receipt of the objections, if any, or from the date
up to which an opportunity is given to the person, officer or
authority to file objections whichever is earlier, after considering
the objections, if any, received from the person, officer or authority
sought to be directed and for reasons to be recorded in writing,
confirm, modify or decide not to issue the proposed direction.
(5) In a case where the Central Government is of the
opinion that in view of the likelihood of a grave injury to the
environment it is not expedient to provide an opportunity to file
objections against the proposed direction, it may, for reasons to be
recorded in writing, issue directions without providing such an
opportunity.
(6) Every notice or direction required to be issued under
this rule shall be deemed to be duly served-
(a) where the person to be served is a company,
if the document is addressed in the name of
the company at its registered office or at its
principal office or place of business and is
either-
(i) sent by registered post; or
(ii) delivered at its registered office or at the
principal office or place of business;
(b) where the person to be served is an officer
13
serving Government if the document is
addressed to the person and a copy thereof
is endorsed to the Head of the Department
and also to the Secretary to the Government,
as the case may be, incharge of the
Department in which for the time being the
business relating to the Department in
which the officer is employed is transacted
and is either.-
(i) sent by registered post; or
(ii) is given or tendered to him;
(c) in any other case, if the document is
addressed to the person to be served and-
(i) is given or tendered to him; or
(ii) if such person cannot be found, is
affixed on some conspicuous part of
his last known place of residence or
business or is given or tendered to
some adult member of his family or is
affixed on some conspicuous part of
the land or building, if any, to which
it relates; or
(iii) is sent by registered post to that
person.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-rule,-
(a) "company" means any body corporate and
includes a firm or other association of
individuals;
(b) "a servant" is not a member of the family."
24. A bare perusal of the above Rule makes it clear that
before issuance of any direction, opportunity has to be given but
Sub rule (5) of Rule 4 of the Rules makes an exception to it. In cases
where there is likelihood of a grave injury to the environment and it
is not expedient to provide an opportunity to file objections against
the proposed direction, directions may be issued. This aspect has
been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
14
Tamilnadu Puducherry Paper Cup Manufacturer Association Vs.State of Tamil Nadu and others, MANU/SC/1180/2023. In which
case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that in all cases
prior hearing in not necessary. It depends upon circumstances,
nature of resultant likely injury and other factors. In paras 39 and
40 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as
follows:-
“39. A reference to Rule 4, indicates that it is mandatory.
This Court has dealt, in several cases with the question of post-
facto decisional hearing. There is no gainsaying that principles of
natural justice have to be complied with wherever the law requires
that course. It is also an accepted principle that the silence of a
statute or Rule about natural justice, nevertheless, calls for a
minimum hearing. At the same time, there have been cases, where
the court has permitted post decisional hearing: notably in Liberty
Oil Mills19. There the court recognized that there can be
emergencies or urgent situations calling for immediate or expedient
action, which cannot be delayed. In such eventualities, this Court
held that the Rule of prior hearing can be dispensed with. In
Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE MANU/SC/0615/2015: (2015) 8
SCC 519 held that the principles of natural justice cannot be
placed in a straitjacket, especially if a fair hearing would in any
event have resulted in the same decision.20 A closer look at Rule
4(5) of the 1986 Rules reveals that it also contains within it, an
exemption for furnishing prior notice in the interest of expediency.
40. In the present case, there is no doubt that a pre-
decisional hearing was not granted. Yet, the court cannot be
oblivious of the fact that the state notified the rules, on 25.06.2018
and did not bring it into force immediately. The ban was made
effective, only from 01.01.2019. The Petitioners and other parties
were afforded the opportunity to represent and make their views
known, which they did. Undoubtedly, the state did not accept
those views. The question then, is whether this Court should insist
that the failure to grant opportunity prior to the government order,
should result in invalidation of the ban itself. If one keeps in mind
the larger public interest sought to be subserved by the impugned
government order, and also importantly the circumstance, that the
Central Government notification dated 01.07.2022 has resulted in
a complete ban on single use cups among other use and throw
plastic products, the public interest cannot be ignored.”
15
25. Even otherwise, in the instant case, in the year 2017,
all those 48 stone crushers had already been stopped. They have
come to know about the order of the CPCB dated 06.12.2016 and
order of the NMCG dated 09.10.2018, but the stone crushers have
never challenged those orders. Therefore, at this stage, the order of
the CPCB and the NMCG cannot be said to be not in accordance
with law on this ground. Moreover, as stated, on 05.09.2018, this
Court in the first and second petition has directed to enforce the
directions of the CPCB dated 06.12.2016. These directions are to
be enforced. In order to enforce those directions, those 48 stone
crushers are to be closed.
26. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
going through the relevant orders passed by the NMCG, the CPCB,
the Coordinate Bench of this Court, Court Commissioner’s report
and other material available on record, this court is particularly
anguished by the fact that in spite of clear directions of this Court
to comply with the order dated 06.12.2016 passed by the CPCB and
order passed on 09.10.2018 by the NMCG in letter and spirit, the
State Government has committed a grave irregularity in
withdrawing the ban imposed by OM dated 24-08-2017 on stone
crushers, which is not permissible in view of the judgment
pronounced by this court on 05.09.2018 in the first and second
petition. The State has clearly violated the orders passed by the
CPCB, the NMCG, and this Court and also flouted the principle of
public trust imposed on it. Uncontrolled Mining is still going on
which is quite clear after perusing the report submitted by the
Court Commissioner, which is disturbing the ecology of the river
Ganga. It is now well settled that the State has a dual obligation
under the doctrine of Public trust, which is to protect natural
16
resources for present and future generations. We are also of the
opinion that mining near the river bed causes disruption of the
natural flow of river, causing deep scouring and channel instability,
which in turn lowers the underground water level and accelerates
flooding and erosion during monsoon. Uncontrolled and
unscientific mining also causes air and noise pollution and is also a
reason for disruption of migratory and native wildlife; it also has an
adverse impact on human health, as it can cause respiratory
ailments, water contamination and crop failure due to dust settling
on agricultural land.
27. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that we are of
the considered opinion that the State Government committed
illegality in withdrawing the ban imposed by the OM dated
24.08.2017. The State Government is directed to strictly comply
with the aforesaid Office Memorandum and immediately seal these
48 stone crushers till further orders. The action should be
immediately taken. In addition to physically closing these stone
crushers, their electricity and water shall be immediately
disconnected. The District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of
Police, of district Haridwar shall be personally responsible for strict
compliance with the OM dated 24.08.2017.
28. The District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent
of Police, Haridwar shall submit a report within a week to this
Court.
29. List on 12.09.2025 for final hearing.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Ravindra Maithani,J.)
30.07.2025 30.07.2025
PN
17
18