Naveen Parihar vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Court:Supreme Court of India
Judge:Hon'ble Hon'Ble The Chief Justice, Sanjay Kumar
Case Status:Disposed
Order Date:2 Apr 2025
CNR:SCIN010164822025

AI Summary

Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order

Order Issued After Hearing

Purpose:

Case Registered

Listed On:

2 Apr 2025

Original Order Copy

Get a certified copy of this order

Download True Copy

Order Text

ITEM NO.46

COURT NO.1

SECTION X

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 16482/2025

[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-03-2025 in WPPIL No. 174/2024 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainitall

NAVEEN PARIHAR

Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.

Respondent $(s)$

(IA No. 79723/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 79724/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No. 79722/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE PETITION (SLP/TP/WP/..))

Date: 02-04-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

For Petitioner(s) :

Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Parihar, Adv. Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, Adv. Ms. Maitri Goal, Adv. Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :

UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following 0 R D F R

Permission to file the special leave petition is granted.

We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, which is in the nature of an interim order, especially as the petitioner, Naveen Parihar, himself states that he is not doing nature Not Verified me-crushing operations as on date. Be that as it may, the $[8:51:27] \frac{15}{15}$ special leave petition is dismissed.

However, we clarify that in case the petitioner, Naveen Parihar, files an application for a grant of anticipatory bail, the same will be dealt with and examined in accordance with law. The impugned judgment does not decide the issue, whether or not the petitioner would be entitled to anticipatory bail.

We also clarify that in case the petitioner, Naveen Parihar, is held guilty of contempt, he would be entitled to challenge the said order in accordance with law.

The question as to whether or not a mining transport permit should be issued to parties who are involved in stone-crushing may also be raised before the High Court. We do not make any comment on this aspect also.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(DEEPAK GUGLANI) (R.S. NARAYANAN) AR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR