Disposed

Gopal Chandra Vanwassi v. Ministry of Mines

NGT6 Nov 2025IA No. 695/2025 in Original Application No. 662/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal held that it cannot proceed with parallel proceedings while the High Court is seisin of the same issue, citing principles of judicial propriety and the supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts over statutory tribunals. An order to UKPCB was issued to report the High Court proceedings' outcome.

What did the court decide?

UKPCB directed to submit report on High Court proceedings status to Registrar General before Tribunal proceeds.

Gopal Chandra Vanwassi vs Ministry of Mines — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item Nos.09-10

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 662/2024 (I.A. Nos. 4/2025, 695/2025 & 307/2024)

¶5

Gopal Chandra Vanwassi

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ministry of Mines & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶9

With

¶10

Original Application No. 1115/2024

¶11

News Item titled “Rampant mining causes Joshimath-like crisis in Uttarakhand’s Bageshwar” appearing in India Today dated 14.08.2024

¶12

Date of hearing: 06.11.2025

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶14

Applicant: None Respondent: Ms. Anjali Rajput, Adv. for R - 3 & 4 Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon & Ms. Lovie Bagga, Advs. for R - 5 (Through VC) Mr. Mukesh Verma & Ms. Vatsala Tripathi, Advs. for UKPCB Mr. Vikrant N. Goyal & Mr. Arun Kumar Yadav, Advs. for CPCB Mr. Abhishek Darmora & Mr. Vedant Bijalwan, Advs. in I.A. 695/2025 Mr. Pratyaksh Gupta, Adv. for MoEF & CC (Through VC) (OA No.115/2024) Ms. Anjali Rajput, Adv. for R – 4 (OA No.115/2024) Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, Mr. Ahmad Kamaal & Ms. Vanshika Sharma, Advs. for CPCB(OA No.115/2024)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This original application (662/2024) was registered on the basis of

¶17

the letter petition sent by one of the residents of Village Ritha, Post Kandhar, Tehsil Garood, District Bageshwar, Uttarakhand with the plea that Bageshwar has been kept in Zone-V in earthquake prone area but Minig Department, Bageshwar and District Magistrate, Bageshwar had

¶18

¶19

granted mining lease for the high Himalayas and hill region creating the environmental hazard.

¶20

Original application No. 1115/2024 was registered in suo-moto exercise of power on the basis of the news item disclosing rampant mining in Bageshwar District of Uttarakhand.

¶21

It has been pointed out by Counsel for the State that in the High Court of Uttarakhand PIL No. 174/2024 has been filed raising this very issue.

¶22

Learned Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand has referred to the common order dated 06.01.2025 passed in WPPIL No. 202/2024 with WPPIL No. 174/2024 whereby the Division Bench of High Court had issued the interim order as under:-

¶23

“8. The report is not merely alarming, but is also shocking. The report and the photographs clearly demonstrate complete lawlessness by the miners, and are proofs of local administration turning a blind eye to the transgression. Further, the report photographs, prima facie, demonstrate that further mining operations, which have already damaged dwelling houses, are likely to result in landslides and definite loss of lives. The ironical part is that trained officers have permitted mining operations at the base and the of the hillock, when habitations in the revenue villages are found on the top of the hillock. The photographs also indicate huge crevasse indicating impending landslides which would definitely lead to huge loss of lives. Hence, pending further orders, all mining operations in Bageshwar district shall stand suspended with immediate effect.”

¶24

It has been further pointed out that on 14.07.2025, Division Bench of High Court in WPPIL No. 174/2024 along with connected six other PILS has recorded the scope of PIL as under:-

¶25

“ 6 . The scope of the PIL pending before this Court is not restrained to mere seismological impacts on account of the mining activity, but, also the gross violations in the conduct of mining operations;”

¶26

Learned Counsel appearing for UKPCB has referred to paragraph 11 of the order dated 14.07.2025 and has submitted that concerned relevant record is with the Department of Income Tax and GST, therefore, at this

¶27

¶28

stage, it is not possible to collect further information. The Division Bench of the High Court has recorded in paragraph no. 11 of the order dated 14.07.2025 as under:-

¶29

“11. In furtherance of our earlier order dated 15.04.2025, it is clarified that the S.P., Bageshwar and the District Mining Officer, Bageshwar shall share all documents related to the illegal transport, sale and purchase of mined material to the Standing Counsel for the Department of Income Tax and GST.”

¶30

Since it has been pointed out that same issue is under consideration in PILs mentioned above before Division Bench of High Court of Uttarakhand, therefore, judicial propriety demands Tribunal should not continue with the parallel proceedings. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of the State of Himachal Pradesh and Others Versus Yogendera Mohan Sengupta and Another in Civil Appeal Nos. 5348-5349/ 2019 dated 11.01.2024 in this regard has held as under:-

¶31

“ xxx…………………………………………xxx……………………………………xxx

¶32

109. In view of the settled legal position, we are of the view that the continuation of the proceedings by the NGT during the pendency of the writ petitions before the High Court was not in conformity with the principles of judicial propriety. Needless to state that the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, insofar as its territorial jurisdiction is concerned, has supervisory jurisdiction over the NGT. Despite pendency of the proceedings before the High Court including the one challenging the interim order dated 12th May 2022 passed by NGT, the NGT went ahead with the passing of the second order impugned herein.

¶33

110. It will also be relevant to refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru (Member of Parliament) (supra), which read thus:

¶34

“13. We are, therefore, of the considered view that it was not appropriate on the part of the learned NGT to have continued with the proceedings before it, specifically, when it was pointed out that the High Court was also in seisin of the matter and had passed an interim order permitting the construction. The conflicting orders passed by the learned NGT and the High Court would lead to an anomalous situation, where the authorities would be faced with a difficulty as to which order they are required to follow. There can be no manner of doubt that in such a situation, it is the orders passed

¶35

¶36

by the constitutional courts, which would be prevailing over the overs passed by the statutory tribunals.”

¶37

111. It can be seen from the perusal of the orders of the NGT itself that though the NGT was informed about the High Court being in seisin of the proceedings, it went on to hold that the judgment given by it was binding and therefore, the draft development plan, which in its view, was not in conformity with its judgment, was liable to be set aside”

¶38

Having regard to the above factual and legal position, we do not intend to proceed further in this OA, however, we require the UKPCB to submit the report before Registrar General of the Tribunal through email at [email protected], informing the status of the final outcome of the pending proceedings before the High Court, once the pending PILs before the High Court are disposed of.

¶39

I.A. No.695/2025 has been filed in OA No. 662/2024 by M/s. Surendra Singh Bhauryal for impleadment in this OA on the ground that order of imposition of environmental compensation dated 02.07.2025 has been passed by the UKPCB against it. Against such an order, proposed intervenor has remedy of filing an appeal. If such an appeal is filed, appellate authority will consider and decide it on its own merit, in accordance with law.

¶40

OAs and pending IAs are accordingly disposed of.

¶41

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶42

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶43

November 06, 2025 Original Application No. 662/2024 (I.A. Nos. 4/2025, 695/2025 & 307/2024) & Original Application No. 115/2024 JG.

¶44

Gopal Chandra Vanwassi v. Ministry of Mines

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Chandra Vanwassi v. Ministry of Mines

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Nature Society vs Principal Secretary Department of Mines Petroleum

Jodhpura Sangharsh Samiti vs Union of India

Jodhpura Sangharsh Samiti vs Union of India

Naresh Chaudhary vs Union of India

Ashish vs

Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Balwinder Kumar vs

Balwinder Kumar vs

Mahesh Chandra Saxena S/O Late Sh. Ram Bihari Lal Saxena vs Central Ground Water Board

MD Imran Ahmad vs Central Pollution Control Board

Bhaskar Rao Vemuri vs .

Gopal Chandra Vanwassi vs Ministry of Mines

News Item Titled "Rampant Mining Causes Joshimath-Like Crisis in Uttarakhand,S Bageshwar" Appearing in India Today Dated 14.08.2024 vs

Gopal Chandra Vanwassi vs Ministry of Mines