Uttarakhand High Court
WPMB/625/2026 of M/S RAVINDRA RICE MILL Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 7 August 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY Writ Petition (M/B) No.625 of 2026 7th August, 2026 M/s Ravindra Rice Mill -----Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Writ Petition (M/B) No.625 of 2026
7th August, 2026
M/s Ravindra Rice Mill
-----Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others
----Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Ms. Geetanjali Dhami, learned counsel for the petitioner through
V.C.
Mr. Puran Singh Bisht, learned C.S.C. along with Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel and Mr. Sachin Mohan Singh Mehta, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3/ Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board.
----------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT : (per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J.)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.06.2026 passed by respondent no.2 imposing a sum of ₹10,76,250/- as environmental compensation upon the petitioner’s unit, which is a rice mill.
3. The order states that in an inspection carried out on 04.07.2022, the unit was found non-compliant with the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act-1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act-1981. Consequently, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 23.02.2026 but the petitioner submitted a representation on 14.05.2026 whereby the petitioner offered its explanation to the show-cause notice.
4. It appears that, thereafter, again an inspection was made and in which the petitioner’s unit was found to be compliant. By the impugned order, environmental compensation for 861 days has been imposed upon the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without considering the explanation furnished by the petitioner in response to show-cause notice issued to it.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Pollution Control Board very fairly states that the competent authority would examine the explanation of the petitioner and pass a speaking order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, subject to the petitioner depositing certain amount.
7. This in our opinion would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of by providing that the explanation of the petitioner dated
14.05.2026 or any fresh explanation, as may be furnished by the petitioner within two weeks from today, along with two attested photocopy of the instant order, shall be considered and decided by the competent authority within a further period of four weeks, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the amount within three weeks.
8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 07.08.2026 SS