# U.P. and others v. M/s Sitapur

- **Citation:** (2002) 2 ILRA 435
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-07-18
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5339 of 2002
- **Bench:** M. Katju, D.R. Chaudhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-p-and-others-v-m-s-sitapur-39931
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Forest Act- section 2 (4) (b) (iv)- the
District Magistrate after considering the
material submitted before him should
decide within one month whether the
petitioners minor mineral are forest
produce under section 2 (4) (b) of the
Indian Forest Act nor not. (held in para
3)

The petitioners should approach the
District Magistrate, Sonbhadra with a
copy of this order and the District
Magistrate, Sonbhadra after considering
the
material
submitted
before
him
should decide with one month whether
the petitioners minor mineral are forest
produce under section 2 (4) (b) of the
Indian Forest Act nor not. If it is found
that they are not forest produce no
transit fee shall be charged from the
petitioners and the transit fee already
realized from the petitioners shall be
refunded with two months.
Case law referred.
JT 2000 (4) SC 341
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
436

## Text

2 All] Sonebhadra Minor Mineral Lease/Permit Holders and others Vs. State of U.P. & ors
435
Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. The
reasons which led to cancellation of the
select list has been examined by the Court
and the Court is of the opinion that they
are relevant and the authorities have not
acted in any arbitrary manner.

32. So far as the question of giving
opportunity of hearing to the writ
petitioners, before cancelling the select
list is concerned, it may be mentioned that
they do not have any legal right and,
therefore
the
question
of
giving
opportunity of hearing to them before
cancelling the select list does not arise. In
the case of Union of India vs. Chakradhar
Sharma (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that 'If the mischief played
is so widespread and all pervasive,
affecting the result, so as to make it
difficult to pick out the persons who have
been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully
deprived of their selection, in such case it;
will neither be possible nor necessary to
issue individual show cause notices to
each selectee. The only way out would be
to cancel the whole selection. Motive
behind the irregularities committed also
has its relevance.' The principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is
fully applicable in the present case. Thus,
it is held that the writ petitioners were not
at all entitled to any show cause notice or
opportunity
of
hearing
before
the
cancellation of the entire selection.

33. In view of the foregoing
discussions, the impugned judgment and
the order of the learned Single Judge is set
aside. All the three Special Appeals are
allowed. However the parties shall bear
their own costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD: 18.7.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE D.R. CHAUDHARY, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5339 of 2002

Sonebhadra Minor Mineral Lease/Permit
Holders Association and others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P. & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vinod Swaroop
Sri S.P. Kesharwani
Sri Vijay Singh
S.C.

Forest Act- section 2 (4) (b) (iv)- the
District Magistrate after considering the
material submitted before him should
decide within one month whether the
petitioners minor mineral are forest
produce under section 2 (4) (b) of the
Indian Forest Act nor not. (held in para
3)

The petitioners should approach the
District Magistrate, Sonbhadra with a
copy of this order and the District
Magistrate, Sonbhadra after considering
the
material
submitted
before
him
should decide with one month whether
the petitioners minor mineral are forest
produce under section 2 (4) (b) of the
Indian Forest Act nor not. If it is found
that they are not forest produce no
transit fee shall be charged from the
petitioners and the transit fee already
realized from the petitioners shall be
refunded with two months.
Case law referred.
JT 2000 (4) SC 341
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
436
(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

Heard counsel for the parties

1. The petitioner no. 1 is an
Association of Minor Mineral Lease
Holders of Sonebhadra district, and the
other petitioners are its members. They
have challenged the validity of the UP
TRANSIT OF TIMBER AND OTHER
FOREST PRODUCE RULES, 1978. The
validity of the Rules has been upheld by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of
U.P. and others Vs. M/s Sitapur
Packing Wood Suppliers etc. JT 2002
(4) SC 341.

2.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners
submitted
that
the
UP
TRANSIT OF TIMBER RULES will not
apply to a Minor Mineral as it is not a
forest produce. In this connection Section
2 (4) (b) (iv) of the Forest Act states that
forest
produce
includes
minerals
(including lime-stone, laterite, mineral
oils, and all products of mines or quarries)
which are found in, or brought from a
forest. It follows that if the minor mineral
excavated was not found in or brought
from a forest as defined under the Forest
Act no transit fee can be charged from the
petitioners.

3. We are not inclined to go into the
question whether the minor mineral being
excavated by the petitioners is found in,
or brought from, a forest as that is a
factual controversy and should be decided
by the appropriate authority. We are only
making the legal position clear so that
there may be no doubt in this connection.
Hence the petitioners should approach the
District Magistrate, Sonbhadra with a
copy of this order and the District
Magistrate Sonbhadra after considering
the material submitted before him should
decide within one month whether the
petitioners minor mineral are forest
produce under section 2 (4) (b) of the
Indian Forest Act or not. If it is found that
they are not forest produce no transit fee
shall be charged from the petitioners and
the transit fee already realized from the
petitioners shall be refunded within two
months.

With the above observation the writ
petition is disposed of.
---------