Interim ban on new stone crushing units is inapplicable to temporary captive plants for strategic national projects.

The Petitioner, a Joint Venture (JV), was awarded a contract by the Border Road Organization (BRO) for the strategic construction/improvement of the Askote-Lipulekh Road (NH-09).

For the execution of this project, the Petitioner applied for permission to install a temporary mobile crushing plant for captive use.

However, the Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board (Respondent No. 2) refused to entertain the application, citing a circular dated 27.05.2025.

This circular was issued to comply with an interim order dated 22.05.2025 passed by the High Court in a Public Interest Litigation (*Mahendra Singh v. Union of India*, WPMB No. 281 of 2025), which directed that permissions for new stone crushing units be kept on hold until dedicated zones were identified by the State.

1. Whether the general stay on new stone crushing units, as ordered in *Mahendra Singh v. Union of India*, applies to temporary mobile crushing plants intended for captive use in projects of strategic national importance.

The court applied the principle of "Strategic Necessity and Captive Use" exceptions to environmental/zoning moratoriums.

It relied on its own judicial precedent from an order dated 30.12.2025 passed in WPMB No. 281 of 2025, where it held that temporary mobile crushing plants for captive use (specifically for the Jamrani Dam Multipurpose Project) should be exempted from the blanket hold on new units.

The court balanced the need for environmental regulation against the requirements of national interest and strategic infrastructure development.

The Court analyzed the nature of the Petitioner’s project, noting it involves a border road of "strategic importance".

It distinguished the Petitioner’s request from a permanent commercial crushing unit, emphasizing that the proposed unit is a "temporary mobile crushing unit" meant for "captive use only," which would be dismantled upon project completion.

The Court reasoned that denying such permission would hinder the Petitioner’s ability to meet contractual commitments and would be "detrimental to the national interest".

By referring to the Jamrani Dam intervention, the Bench concluded that the earlier restrictive order of 22.05.2025 should not act as an impediment for strategic projects where the crushing unit is temporary and non-commercial in nature.

The Court directed Respondent No. 2 (Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board) to consider and pass appropriate orders on the Petitioner's application for the mobile crushing plant at Village Gunji, District Pithoragarh, on its own merits and without regard to the restrictive order dated 22.05.2025, within a period of four weeks.