The Uttarakhand High Court, presided over by Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay, has directed the State Pollution Control Board (PCB) and the Department of Industries to submit their responses within six weeks in a case concerning the Sai Krupa Stone Crusher located in Bhimawala, Vikasnagar, Dehradun. The facility is accused of operating in violation of environmental and regulatory norms. The next hearing is scheduled for July 22.
Government Submission on Stone Crusher Regulations
During the proceedings, the state government argued that a stone crusher can be established within a residential area if the applicable regulations permit such an operation, provided that local residents grant a no-objection certificate (NOC). On an earlier date, the court had vacated the interim stay that had been imposed on the project.
Petitioner’s Allegations
The petition, filed by resident Skand Kumar Singh, claims that the Sai Krupa Stone Crusher is situated near a densely populated area, a government intermediate college, an anganwadi center, and a gram panchayat office. The petitioner asserts that this location violates existing norms, as the unit falls within a prohibited 200-meter zone. The petition further contends that the operation of the crusher would adversely affect the environment and the health of local residents and schoolchildren. Additionally, the plea alleges non-compliance with guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) in July 2023.
Initial Court Observations and Supreme Court Intervention
During the initial hearing, the court found the allegations “prima facie serious” and imposed a stay on both the construction and operation of the crusher unit. The court observed that the unit was not situated within a designated zone and appeared to be functioning contrary to CPCB guidelines. Subsequently, the owner of Sai Krupa Stone Crusher sought the vacation of the stay order, leading the matter to the Supreme Court. The apex court directed the High Court to hear the case expeditiously and pass appropriate orders.
Site Inspections and Compliance Reports
In compliance with the court’s directives, the PCB and several expert committees conducted multiple site inspections. Their reports indicated that the crusher’s production capacity, air quality, and noise levels were “within prescribed limits.” Tests carried out by a three-member committee between February 16 and 18 found that the unit’s operations “complied with regulatory standards” and that “pollution levels remained within permissible limits even during trial runs.”
Arguments by the Crusher Owner
The crusher owner informed the court that the unit had obtained a lease in 2024 and operational permission in 2025, and was already functioning before the present petition was filed. It was further argued that the CPCB guidelines were not binding in nature, and therefore, the stay order should be vacated and the public interest litigation (PIL) dismissed.
