IN
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD.
INDEX
IN
CIVIL
MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.
OF 2005
(Under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India)
(DISTRICT
– BANDA)
M/S Neogy and Sons, Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.)
Through its Partner Ashok Kumar Neogy,
s/o Late
Anil Kumar Neogy, resident of Jaitwara,
District-
Satna (M.P.) and 34 others …………….Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Uttar Pradesh, through
Secretary,
Forest Department, Secretariat, U.P.
Lucknow. and others
………………….RESPONDENTS.
|
S.N.
|
Particulars of
Documents
|
Dates
|
Annexure No.
|
Page No.
|
|
1
|
List of Dates
|
------
|
-----------
|
|
|
2
|
Stay Application
|
------
|
-----------
|
|
|
3
|
WRIT PETITION
|
------
|
------------
|
|
|
4
|
Forest Produce Rules, 1978
|
27/09/78
|
Annexure No.1
|
|
|
5
|
Mining lease(as an exemplar)
|
21/12/01
|
Annexure No.2
|
|
|
6
|
Writ Petition No. 5339 of 2002 Judgement
|
18/7/02
|
Annexure No.3
|
|
|
7
|
Excavation transit-pass(as an exemplar)
|
13/11/03
|
Annexure No.4
|
|
|
8
|
Foreign Pass under the threat of confiscation(as an
exemplar)
|
27/12/03
|
Annexure No.5
|
|
|
9
|
U.P. Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce (Ist
Amendment) Rules, 2004
|
16/06/04
|
Annexure No.6
|
|
|
10
|
The interim order passed in writ petition no.36496 of 2004
|
13/09/04
|
Annexure No.7
|
|
|
11
|
The interim order passed in writ petition no.45687 of 2004
|
01/11/04
|
Annexure No.8
|
|
|
12
|
Petitioner’s Representations (collectively)
|
31/12/04
|
Annexure No.9
|
|
|
13
|
Affidavit
|
|
|
|
|
14
|
Vakalatnama
|
|
|
|
Dated/- 14th January, 2005 (YOGESH KUMAR SAXENA)
ADVOCATE.
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS
Chamber
No. 139
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
AT ALLAHABAD.
LIST OF DATES
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2005
(Under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India)
(DISTRICT – BANDA)
M/S Neogy and Sons, Jaitwara,
District- Satna (M.P.)
Through
its Partner Ashok Kumar Neogy, s/o Late
Anil
Kumar Neogy, resident of Jaitwara, District-
Satna
(M.P.) and 34 others………………………...Petitioners
VERSUS
State
of Uttar Pradesh, through Secretary,
Forest
Department, Secretariat, U.P. Lucknow. and others
………………………………………..RESPONDENTS
21.9.1927 INDIAN FOREST ACT, 1927- Definition-“
2 (4). ‘ Forest Produce’ includes-
(a) the following, whether found in, or
brought from, aforest or not, that is to say –
timber, charcoal, coutchouc, catechu, wood-oil,
resin, natural varnish, bark, lac, myrabalans and rhinoceros horns, and
(b)
the
following when found in or brought from a forest, that is to say –
(i)
trees
and leaves, and fruits and all other parts or produce, not herein before
mentioned of trees.
(ii)
Plants
not being trees (including grass, creepers, reeds and moss), and all parts of
produce of such plants.
(iii)
Wild
animals and skins, tusks and horns other than rhinoceros horns, bones, silk,
cocoons, honey and wax , and all other parts or produce of animals, and
(iv)
Peat,
surface oil, rock and minerals (including lime-stone, laterite, mineral oils
and all products of mines and quarries.”
27.9.1978 U.P. Transit of Timber and Other
Forest Produce Rules, 1978. The
transit fees under these Rules may be realised only on forest produce as
defined under section 2 (4) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
12.12.1996
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad versus Union of India (1997) 2
S.C.C. Page 267; A.I.R. 1997 S.C. page 1228 followed by (1997) 3 S.C.C. page
312 and (1997) 10 S. C. C. Page 775.
13.01.1998 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad versus
Union of India 2000 (10) SCC 579 . Thus inview of the aforesaid direction any
mining activities from inside the forest land / area has been prohibited completely and as such minerals can not be excavated nor brought
from the forest, and as such the minerals are not the forest produced.
21.12.2001
Prescribed Form of mining lease executed by the concerned
petitioner through its partner and the Collector on behalf of Governor of
Madhya Pradesh accompanied with the Map and stamp payable in the aforesaid
lease for the aforesaid execution.
13.11.2003
Issue the transit pass to the petitioners for excavation
from the revenue land by specifying therein that the mining activities are
permissible only inside the non-forest area.
27.12.2003 Even the minerals transported is not
the forest produced but even than the respondent no. 3 issued arbitrarily
Foreign Pass, which were obtained by the respondent no.3 under the threat of
confiscation of the vehicle even transporting the (Minerals namely Red Ochre, Yellow
Ochre, White Earth and Bauxite etc.), which is non Forest Produce.
16.04.2004 Issued
vide notification of the provisions of U.P. Transit of Timber and other Forest
Produce (Ist Amendment) Rules, 2004, having certain amendment in respect of
realisation of the fees chargeable by the forest department.
31.12.2004
Representations submitted by the petitioners before the
respondent no.3 accompanied with the affidavits and other relevant documents
seeking prohibition from the realisation of transit fees under the provisions
of U.P. Transit of Timber and Other Forest Produce Rules,1978. The petitioner
submitted there arguments in support of these averment requesting them not to
realise the transit fees on the non forest produce, which is wholly arbitrary
and realised by the respondents without jurisdiction.
14.01.2005
The present writ petition is filed before this Hon’ble
Court.
Dated/- 14th January, 2005 (YOGESH KUMAR SAXENA)
ADVOCATE.
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS
Chamber
No. 139
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD.
**************
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. OF 2005.
(Under Section 151 of the C.P.C.)
On behalf of
M/S
Neogy and Sons, Jaitwara, District-
Satna (M.P.)Through its Partner Ashok Kumar Neogy, s/o Late Anil Kumar Neogy,
resident of Jaitwara, District-Satna (M.P.) and 34 others …………….APPLICANTS/
Petitioners.
IN
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2005
(Under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India)
( DISTRICT – BANDA )
1. M/S Neogy and Sons, Jaitwara, District- Satna
(M.P.)Through its Partner Ashok Kumar Neogy, s/o Late Anil Kumar Neogy,
resident of Jaitwara, District-Satna (M.P.)
2. M/S Mittal Trading
Company, Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.)
through its partner Suresh Kumar Agrawal, son of Sri Beni Madhav Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.)
3. M/S Chhabbo Lal
Shiv Kumar, Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.) through its Partner Shiv Kumar son
of Sri Chhabbov Lal ,Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
4. M/S Rameshwar
Prasad Ram Chandra, Jitwara, District
Satna (M.P.) through its partner Kamlesh Kumar Bansal Resident of Jaitwara,
District- Satna (M.P.).
5. M/S Kunji Lal Ishwar Prasad, Jaitwara,
District Satna (M.P.) through its partner Durga Prasad Agrawal, s/o Sri Mool
Chand Agrawal, Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
6. M/S M.M. Minerals,
Satna, through its Partner Smt. Saraswati Agrawal, w/o Sri Mahesh Prasad
Agrawal,Resident of Satna, District- Satna (M.P.).
7. M/S Praveen Chand Jain, Uchehara, District
Satna, through its Partner Praveen Chand Jain, s/o Sri Shiclal Jain,Resident of
Uchehara,.District Satna (M.P.).
8. M/S S.M. Minerals, Jaitwara, District Satna
(M.P.) through its Proprietor Mahesh Prasad Agrawal, s/o Sri Shiv Ratan
Agrawal, Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
9. M/S Ruchit Minerals & Chemicals, Jaitwara,
District Satna (M.P.) through its partner Raghvendra Kumar Agrawal, s/o Sri Ram Autar Agrawal, Resident
of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
10. M/S Sitaram Mahesh Kumar, Jaitwara, District
Satna (M.P.) through its partner Ashok Bansal, Resident of Jaitwara, District-
Satna (M.P.).
11. M/S Harris
Minerals Supply Co. Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.) through its partner Arun
Kumar Bansal, s/o Sri Har Lal Bansal, Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna
(M.P.).
12. M/S Bansal Khanij
Udyog, Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.) through its Partner Ram Chandra Bansal,
Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
13. M/S M.P. Mineral Supply Co. Jaitwara, District
Satna (M.P.) through its Parnter Om Prakash Bansal, Resident of Jaitwara,
District- Satna (M.P.).
14. M/S Jai Lal Bharat Lal, Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.)
through its partner Shree Gopal Bansal, Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna
(M.P.).
15. M/S Rakesh
Agencies, Jaitwara, District Satna
(M.P.) through its partner Om Prakash Bansal, Resident of Jaitwara, District-
Satna (M.P.).
16. M/S Mittal Minerals, Jaitwara, District Satna
(M.P.) through its partner Brijendra Kumar Agrawal s/o Sri Som Chandra Agrawal,
Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
17. M/S Harsh Minerals, Jaitwara, District Satna
(M.P.) through its partner Sharda Prasad Bansal s/o Sri Har Lal Basal, Resident
of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
18. M/S Lachhi Lal and
Sons Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.) through its partner Praveen Chand Agrawal
, Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
19. M/S Pooja Minerals Jaitwara, District Satna
(M.P.) through Power of Attorney Holder Sri R.S. Bansal ,Resident of Jaitwara,
District- Satna (M.P.).
20. M/S Samle Prasad Gauri Shankar Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.) through its
Proprietor Prakash Chandra Gupta s/o
Sri Gauri Shankar Gupta, Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
21. M/S Mahesh
Minerals Satna (M.P.) through its proprietor Mahesh Prasad Agrawal s/o Sri Mool Chand Agrawal, Resident of
Satna, District- Satna (M.P.).
22. M/S Hiralal
Anubhav Kumar Jaitwara, District Satna
(M.P.) through its Proprietor Vishwanath Prasad s/o Sri Heera Lal Agrawal, Resident of
Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
23. M/S Hiralal & Sons, Jaitwara, District
Satna (M.P.) through its Proprietor Rajendra Kumar Agrawal s/o Sri Heera Lal
Agrawal, Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
24. M/S Gulab Chand
Agrawal & Brothers Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.) through its partner
Ramdas Agrawal s/o Sri Beni Madhav
Agrawal, Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
25. M/S Kunjilal Badri
Prasad Agrawal, Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.) through its partner Durga
Prasad Agrawal, Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
26. M/S Agrawal Minerals, Jaitwara, District Satna
(M.P.) through its Proprietor Lakhanlal Agrawal s/o Sri Sundar Lal Agrawal,
Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
27. M/S Agrawal
Minerals, Jaitwara Branch at Katni. (M.P.) through its Proprietor Gopal Swaroop
Agrawal s/o Sri Govind Prasad Agrawal, Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna
(M.P.).
28. M/S Shiv Minerals
& Chemicals, Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.) through its Proprietor Smt.
Sarla Devi Agrawal, w/o Sri Ram Autar Agrawal, Resident of Jaitwara, District-
Satna (M.P.).
29. M/S Singhania
Minerals, Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.) through its Proprietor Vishnu Kumar
Agrawal s/o Sri Mukund Lal Agrawal, Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna
(M.P.).
30. M/S R.K. Minerals
Industries, Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.) through its Proprietor Smt. Raj
Kumari Bansal, w/o Sri Mahesh Kumar Bansal, Resident of Jaitwara, District-
Satna (M.P.).
31. M/S Naveen
Enterprises, Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.) through its Proprietor Vineet
Kumar Pandey s/o Sri V.K. Pandey, Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
32. M/S Swastik Minerals, Jaitwara, District Satna
(M.P.) through its Proprietor Vikas Jain s/o Sri Sant Kumar Jain, Resident of
Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
33. M/S Shambhoo Nath
Chandrika Prasad, Jaitwara, District Satna
(M.P.) through its Proprietor Sushil Gupta s/o Sri Mishri Lal Gupta,
Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
34. M/S Agrawal
Trading Corporation, Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.) through its Proprietor
Shiv Kumar Agrawal s/o Sri Ram Bahori Agrawal, Resident of Jaitwara, District-
Satna (M.P.).
35. M/S Nimit Minerals, Jaitwara, District Satna
(M.P.) through its Proprietor Girdhari Agrawal s/o Sri Govind Prasad Agrawal,
Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
………………………..PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
1. State of Uttar
Pradesh, through Secretary,
Forest
Department, Secretariat, U.P. Lucknow.
2. Chief Conservator,
Forest, U.P., Lucknow.
3. Conservator, Forest, Bundelkhand Circle,
Jhansi.
4. Divisional Forest Officer, Banda Region,
Banda.
5. Divisional Forest Officer, Karvi, Chitrakoot
Dham,
District
– Chitrakoot.
………………….RESPONDENTS.
To,
The Hon’ble the Chief Justice and his
other companion Judges of the aforesaid Court.
The humble application of the
abovenamed applicants/ petitioners most respectfully showeth as under: -
1.
That the full facts and circumstances of the
case have been disclosed in the accompanying writ petition, it is expedient in
the interest of justice that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to
direct the Respondents not to realise the Transit Fees or to enforce the
Registration Pass from the non forest produce mineral/ marketable minerals
belonging to the petitioners transported through the vehicles In furtherance of
illegal provisions of Rules 3,4 and 5 and Rule 21 and 23 of U.P. Transit
of Timber and other Forest Produce
Rules, 1978 respectively.
PRAYER
It is,
therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be
pleased to direct the respondents not to realise the transit fees or to enforce
the Registration Pass from the Mineral/
marketable minerals belonging to the petitioners transported
through the vehicles In furtherance of illegally non enforceable provisions of
Rules 3,4 and 5 and Rule 21 and 23 of U.P. Transit of Timber and other Forest
Produce Rules, 1978 respectively. And /or pass such other suitable order or
direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present
circumstances of the case.
Dated/-14th
January, 2005 (YOGESH
KUMAR SAXENA)
ADVOCATE.
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS
IN
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD.
**************
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2005
(Under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India)
( DISTRICT – BANDA )
1.
M/S Neogy and Sons,
Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.)
Through
its Partner Ashok Kumar Neogy, s/o Late
Anil
Kumar Neogy, resident of Jaitwara, District-
Satna
(M.P.)
2.
M/S Mittal Trading Company, Jaitwara, District Satna
(M.P.) through its partner Suresh
Kumar Agrawal, son of Sri Beni Madhav
Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.)
3.
M/S Chhabbo Lal Shiv Kumar, Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.)
through its Partner Shiv Kumar son of Sri Chhabbov Lal ,Resident of Jaitwara,
District- Satna (M.P.).
4.
M/S Rameshwar Prasad
Ram Chandra, Jitwara, District Satna (M.P.) through its partner Kamlesh
Kumar Bansal Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
5.
M/S Kunji Lal Ishwar
Prasad, Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.) through its partner Durga Prasad
Agrawal, s/o Sri Mool Chand Agrawal, Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna
(M.P.).
6.
M/S M.M. Minerals, Satna, through its Partner Smt. Saraswati
Agrawal, w/o Sri Mahesh Prasad Agrawal,Resident of Satna, District- Satna
(M.P.).
7.
M/S Praveen Chand Jain,
Uchehara, District Satna, through its Partner Praveen Chand Jain, s/o Sri
Shiclal Jain,Resident of Uchehara,.District Satna (M.P.).
8.
M/S S.M. Minerals,
Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.) through its Proprietor Mahesh Prasad Agrawal,
s/o Sri Shiv Ratan Agrawal, Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
9.
M/S Ruchit Minerals
& Chemicals, Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.) through its partner Raghvendra
Kumar Agrawal, s/o Sri Ram Autar
Agrawal, Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
10. M/S Sitaram Mahesh Kumar, Jaitwara, District
Satna (M.P.) through its partner Ashok Bansal, Resident of Jaitwara, District-
Satna (M.P.).
11. M/S Harris
Minerals Supply Co. Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.) through its partner Arun
Kumar Bansal, s/o Sri Har Lal Bansal, Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna
(M.P.).
12. M/S Bansal Khanij
Udyog, Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.) through its Partner Ram Chandra Bansal,
Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
13. M/S M.P. Mineral Supply Co. Jaitwara, District
Satna (M.P.) through its Parnter Om Prakash Bansal, Resident of Jaitwara,
District- Satna (M.P.).
14. M/S Jai Lal Bharat Lal, Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.)
through its partner Shree Gopal Bansal, Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna
(M.P.).
15. M/S Rakesh
Agencies, Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.) through its partner Om Prakash
Bansal, Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
16. M/S Mittal Minerals, Jaitwara, District Satna
(M.P.) through its partner Brijendra Kumar Agrawal s/o Sri Som Chandra Agrawal,
Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
17. M/S Harsh Minerals, Jaitwara, District Satna
(M.P.) through its partner Sharda Prasad Bansal s/o Sri Har Lal Basal, Resident
of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
18. M/S Lachhi Lal and
Sons Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.) through its partner Praveen Chand Agrawal
, Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
19. M/S Pooja Minerals Jaitwara, District Satna
(M.P.) through Power of Attorney Holder Sri R.S. Bansal ,Resident of Jaitwara,
District- Satna (M.P.).
20. M/S Samle Prasad Gauri Shankar Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.) through its
Proprietor Prakash Chandra Gupta s/o
Sri Gauri Shankar Gupta, Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
21. M/S Mahesh
Minerals Satna (M.P.) through its proprietor Mahesh Prasad Agrawal s/o Sri Mool Chand Agrawal, Resident of
Satna, District- Satna (M.P.).
22. M/S Hiralal
Anubhav Kumar Jaitwara, District Satna
(M.P.) through its Proprietor Vishwanath Prasad s/o Sri Heera Lal Agrawal, Resident of
Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
23. M/S Hiralal & Sons, Jaitwara, District Satna
(M.P.) through its Proprietor Rajendra Kumar Agrawal s/o Sri Heera Lal Agrawal,
Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
24. M/S Gulab Chand
Agrawal & Brothers Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.) through its partner
Ramdas Agrawal s/o Sri Beni Madhav Agrawal,
Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
25. M/S Kunjilal Badri
Prasad Agrawal, Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.) through its partner Durga
Prasad Agrawal, Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
26. M/S Agrawal Minerals, Jaitwara, District Satna
(M.P.) through its Proprietor Lakhanlal Agrawal
s/o Sri Sundar Lal Agrawal, Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna
(M.P.).
27. M/S Agrawal
Minerals, Jaitwara Branch at Katni. (M.P.) through its Proprietor Gopal
Swaroop Agrawal s/o Sri Govind Prasad Agrawal, Resident of Jaitwara, District-
Satna (M.P.).
28. M/S Shiv Minerals
& Chemicals, Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.) through its Proprietor Smt.
Sarla Devi Agrawal , w/o Sri Ram Autar Agrawal, Resident of Jaitwara, District-
Satna (M.P.).
29. M/S Singhania
Minerals, Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.) through its Proprietor Vishnu Kumar
Agrawal s/o Sri Mukund Lal Agrawal, Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna
(M.P.).
30. M/S R.K. Minerals
Industries, Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.) through its Proprietor Smt. Raj
Kumari Bansal, w/o Sri Mahesh Kumar Bansal, Resident of Jaitwara, District-
Satna (M.P.).
31. M/S Naveen
Enterprises, Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.) through its Proprietor Vineet
Kumar Pandey s/o Sri V.K. Pandey, Resident of Jaitwara, District-
Satna (M.P.).
32. M/S Swastik Minerals, Jaitwara, District Satna
(M.P.) through its Proprietor Vikas Jain
s/o Sri Sant Kumar Jain, Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
33. M/S Shambhoo Nath
Chandrika Prasad, Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.) through its Proprietor Sushil
Gupta s/o Sri Mishri Lal Gupta, Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
34. M/S Agrawal
Trading Corporation, Jaitwara, District Satna (M.P.) through its Proprietor
Shiv Kumar Agrawal s/o Sri Ram Bahori Agrawal, Resident of Jaitwara, District-
Satna (M.P.).
35. M/S Nimit Minerals, Jaitwara, District Satna
(M.P.) through its Proprietor Girdhari Agrawal s/o Sri Govind Prasad Agrawal,
Resident of Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.).
………………………..PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
1. State of Uttar
Pradesh, through Secretary,
Forest
Department, Secretariat, U.P.Lucknow.
2. Chief Conservator,
Forest, U.P., Lucknow.
3. Conservator,
Forest, Bundelkhand Circle, Jhansi.
4. Divisional Forest
Officer, Banda Region, Banda.
5. Divisional Forest
Officer, Karvi, Chitrakoot Dham,
District
– Chitrakoot.
………………….RESPONDENTS.
To,
The Hon’ble the Chief Justice and
his other companion Judges of the aforesaid Court.
The humble writ petition of the
abovenamed petitioners most respectfully showeth as under :-
1.
That this is the first writ petition filed by the
petitioners before this Hon’ble Court relating to the controversy involved in
the present writ petition and no other writ petition has been filed or pending
on the same before this Hon’ble Court. The petitioners have not received any
notice of the Caveat application so far in the present writ petition.
2.
That the Union List promulgated i9n exercise of the
power under Article 246 have the Entry No. 54 for regulation of the mines and
mineral development under the Seventh Schedule of our Constitution. In exercise
of the powers conferred by section 13 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and
Development) Act, 1957. The Central Government enacted the Mineral Concession
Rules, 1960. The petitioner No. 1 to 23 are the lease holder under the
aforesaid rules, while the petitioner No. 24 to 35 are their traders dealing
with the marketable mineral brought from them. The excavation of the minerals
namely Red Ochre, Yellow Ochre, White Earth and Bauxite etc. is done from the
revenue land from out side the forest land and as such no transit fees as
levied on forest produced by the respondents may be realised from them.
3.
That by means of the present writ petition, the petitioners
are seeking the directions from this Hon’ble Court not to enforce coercive
Registration under Rule 21and 23 and not to realise any transit fees from the
mineral (non Forest Produce) transported through the vehicles under the
provisions of U.P. Transit of Timber and
Other Forest Produce Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred as Forest Produce Rules, 1978) as the
mineral transported by the petitioners from Jaitwara, Satna, Katni and Jabalpur
excavated from different areas of State of Madhya Pradesh transported to
destination to the State of Uttar Pradesh and other States of Northern India
are not the forest produce within
the definition of Section 2 (4)(b) of
the Forest Act as the same are neither found in, nor brought from a forest
area and as such there is no power vested with the respondents for realisation
of the transit fees from the vehicles transporting the minerals for carrying it
within territorial limit of Uttar Pradesh.
4.
That before submitting the brief factual matrix of the
controversy involved in the present writ petition, it is submitted that since
all the petitioners are seeking identical relief based on the common set of
facts and as such the petitioners have associated themselves for filing the
present writ petition in order to get redressal of their grievances against the
illegal and arbitrary exercise of power in realisation of transit charges from
the vehicles carrying the mineral excavated by them. The present writ petition
filed on behalf of all the petitioners may kindly be accepted for deciding the
controversy as a common legal aspect of the matter for kind appreciation and
perusal of this Hon’ble Court is involved in the present writ petition.
5.
That the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already laid down for the
protection and conservation of the forest in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad versus Union of India (1997) 2 S.C.C. Page
267; A.I.R. 1997 S.C. page 1228 followed by (1997) 3 S.C.C. page 312 and (1997)
10 S.C.C. Page 775 followed by further directions in the aforesaid case
subsequently thereafter that since the word ‘ FOREST ‘ must be understood
according to its dictionary meaning, the description covered under all the
statutory recognised forest designated as reserved, protected or otherwise, the
connotation ‘FOREST’ and the term forest land occurring in Section 2 that the
forest and forest land shall also include any area recorded irrespective of its
ownership. The entire mining activities in all the States indulged for
excavation of the mineral were stopped in side the forest area and as such the
aforesaid judgements have completely prohibited for excavation of any mineral
from the forest, nor the same could have been brought by any individual from a
forest.
6.
That the common questions of law are involved in relations
to cause of action applicable in relations to non-realisation of the transit
fees from non-forest produce. This petition is also having the touch of Public
Interest as large number of vehicles carrying the non Produce mineral excavated
from non forest area/ land is subjected to get arbitrary registered by the
respondents and Transit Fees is Illegally charged upon such Mineral (non Forest
Produce) b using the police power and as such it may be treated in Public
Interest also, for redressal of grievances of public at large. Thus a single
set of court fees may be required to be paid in the present writ petition.
7.
That the minerals namely Red Ochre (Geru),
Yellow Ochre (Pili Mitti), white earth (Khadia), and lime stone are used for
religious purposes inside the temple and on the deity of different vedic Hindu
Religious functions as well as white earth (Khadia) in imparting education to
primary level students in village and also the use of different Ayrvedic
Medicine preparation. The mineral Bauxite is used for manufacturing alum
(Fitikari), which is used for purification of water and has other medicinal
values. The same are the Non Forest Produce Mineral and as such the charging of
the alleged transit fees on the transportation of these material may effect the
cost escalation to the majority of citizens and children using these mineral
effecting their fundamental and legal rights guaranteed under Articles 14,
19(1) (a) (c) & (f), 21, 25,and 26 read with article 45 0f constitution of
India. Thus the present writ petition may be treated apart from individual legal
rights of the petitioner, also in Public Interest for the protection of the
legal rights of the Children, citizens at large suffering on account of cost
escalation of these mineral.
8.
That apart from this, there is no factual controversy
involved in relations to any disputed question of factual aspect and the
position in respect of the realisation of illegal transit fees from the mineral
transported through the vehicles crossing through Badausa and Karvi barriers
within jurisdiction of respondent no. 4 and 5 are vitally affecting to the
legal rights resulting in infringement of their respective fundamental rights
guaranteed under Article 14, 19 (a) (g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
9.
That fairness in
exercise of statutory power conferred with the authority vested under the
respondents is the duty caste upon the officials performing certain statutory
functions. The custodian of power have reciprocal obligations to act for
achieving objective to meet out the periphery of the requirement reposed with
them. Since there is a clear transgression of the limit through colourable
exercise of power resulting in highhandedness to the rights of the aggrieved
party, this Hon’ble Court being sentinel and guardian of people at large has
power to restrain them from acting in contravention to the provisions of law.
10.
That for the kind appraisal of this Hon’ble Court, the
petitioners are reproducing the provisions of Section 2 (4) of the Forest Act
hereinafter :-
“ 2 (4). ‘ Forest Produce’ includes-
(c)
the following, whether found in, or
brought from, a forest or not, that is to say –
Timber, charcoal, coutchouc, catechu,
wood-oil, resin, natural varnish, bark, lac, myrabalans and rhinoceros horns,
and
(d)
the following when found in or brought
from a forest, that is to say –
(v)
Trees and leaves, and fruits and all
other parts or produce, not herein before mentioned of trees.
(vi)
Plants not being trees (including
grass, creepers, reeds and moss), and all parts of produce of such plants.
(vii)
Wild animals and skins, tusks and horns
other than rhinoceros horns, bones, silk, cocoons, honey and wax , and all
other parts or produce of animals, and
(viii)
Peat, surface oil, rock and minerals
(including lime-stone, laterite, mineral oils and all products of mines and
quarries.”
11. That the U. P.
Transit of Timber and Other Forest Produce Rules, 1978 are enacted in exercise
of powers conferred under section 41, 42, 51 and 76 of the Indian Forest Act,
1927 in suppression of the Govt. notification No. 672/XIV-42 dated 30.9.1915
and all other orders and notification on the subject the Governor of Uttar
Pradesh was pleased to make the U.P. Transit of Timber and Other Forest Produce
Rules, 1978 to regulate the transit of timber and other forest produce. The
true copy of the aforesaid Forest Produce Rules, 1978 is being filed herewith
and marked as Annexure no.1
to this writ petition.
12. That the
petitioners are the registered partnership firms/ proprietorship firm and
Traders carrying on the business of purchase and sale of minerals namely Red
Ochre (Geru), Yellow Ochre ( Pili Mitti), white earth ( Khadia), Buxite, and
lime stone. These minerals are excavated in accordance with the conditions
stipulated in mining lease granted by the Madhya Pradesh State Government,
which are situated in the Revenue Area, (out side forest area). None of the
mining lease area is situated in any forest area and the petitioners have filed
their applications supported with affidavit to this effect to the respondent
no.3 for determination of their rights.
13. That a certificate
to this effect has been obtained from Mines Officer by the petitioners stating
therein that excavation of the mineral is done from mines situated in the
Revenue Area. The petitioners are filing the one exemplar for the purposes of
demonstrating and in support of contentions made by the petitioners. The true
copy of the prescribed Form of Mining
Lease dated 21.12.2001 executed by the concerned petitioner through its
partner and the Collector on behalf of Governor of Madhya Pradesh accompanied
with the Map and stamp payable in the aforesaid lease for the aforesaid
execution are also filed as an exemplar herewith and marked as Annexure no.2 to this writ
petition.
14. That although the
validity of the aforesaid forest produce Rules, 1978 has been upheld by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in J. T. 2002 (4) S.C. Page 341, but it has been held
that no transit fees shall be charged if the mineral are not found in or
brought on the forest as defined under the Forest Act in case of Sonebhadra Minor Mineral Lease/Permit
Holders Association Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and other bearing writ
petition no. 5339 of 2002. The true copy of the judgement dated 18.7.2002
passed in writ petition no. 5339 of 2002 is being filed herewith and marked as.
Annexure no 3 to this writ
petition.
15. That the
petitioners are also filing the Mineral Transit-Pass Transit Pit Pass d
indicating the proof of dispatch from Revenue Land payable by them to the
Madhya Pradesh Government for transportation of mineral from the mines situated
to the place of their respective factories. The transit-pass are filed in order
to demonstrate the factum of excavation and transportation from revenue land
out side from any forest area and forest land. The true copy of the said
Mineral Transit-Pass 13.11.2003 payable by them to the Madhya Pradesh
Government are being filed as an exemplar herewith and marked as Annexure no.4 to this writ
petition.
16. That despite the
facts that none of mineral transported is foreign produce, the respondent no.3
is issuing the foreign –pass by compelling the firm owners of the mines and
traders to get themselves registered in furtherance of the provisions of Rule
21 and 23 of the U.P. Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978.
In case such registration is not taken by the firm owners and traders, the
vehicles transporting the minerals are ceased by exercising the Police power in
collusion with Police administration by the respondent no.3. This is in
violation of rights guaranteed to the citizens having the transportation of the
vehicles, which is violative of Article 14, 19(1) (f), 21 and 300-A of the
Constitution of India. The true copy of the Foreign Pass dated 27. 12. 2003
obtained by the respondent no.3 under the threat of confiscation of the vehicle
even transporting the non Forest Produce are filed as Annexure No. 5 to this writ petition.
17. That the power to
regulate the forest produce vests with the Central Govt. under the provisions
of section 39 of the Indian Forest Act, which is realizable only in respect of
duty imposed on Timber and other forest produce. Since there has been the
detail provisions under Rule 3 to Rule 5 of THE UTTAR PRADESH MINERS
(PREVENTION OF ILLEGAL MINING TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE) Rules, 2002 and as
such no mineral can be excavated from the forest land. The transit pass are
issued for the purposes of conducting the transportation of mineral from the
Mines, which is issued by Collector of the Mines Department. It is clearly
mentioned on the transit pass that the same is issued for the transportation o
f the mineral excavated from the non-forest area. Thus there is the prohibition
made for realisation of the transit fees chargeable from the mineral excavated
from the non-forest area as non-forest produce.
18. That the state
Govt. vide notification dated 16.6.2004 brought the first amendment in the
Forest Produce Rule, 1978, the notification has been issued on 14.6.2004 having
the different schedule rates for realisation of transit fees and for
enhancement of fees of issuance of foreign pass from Rs.100/- to Rs.750/-. The
true copy of the provisions of U.P. Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce
(Ist Amendment) Rules, 2004 issued vide notification dated 16.6.2004 is being
filed herewith and marked as Annexure
no.6 to this writ petition.
19. That the
collection of transit fees at the forest check posts is arbitrary and violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and amount to unreasonable
restriction on the rights of the petitioners to carry trade and business as
guaranteed under Article 19 (1) of the Constitution of India.
20. That, it may be
stated here that levying duty of transit fee is only (fee) and the said levy is
being demanded by the petitioners on each trip, but in return the respondents
are not rendering any service in lieu of realisation /collection of transit
fees. They are not maintaining any separate account of funds and are only
mixing up it with general revenue. Accordingly levy demanding as transit fees
is invalid.
21. That the
petitioners have brought on record the example of interference by the Forest
Department in the name and style of transit fees against the petitioners. This
as such is wholly arbitrary, unwarranted, and bad in the eyes of law. This is
an illegal interference in the business and trade of the petitioners and the
act and conduct of the respondents is violative of article 19 (1)(g) of the
Constitution of India.
22. That on 13.9.2004
in a similar facts and circumstances involving identical question of law
(involving silica sand) ,a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court was pleased to
direct that no transit fee shall be realised from the petitioners in
transporting the finished products vide order dated 13.9.2004. The true copy of
the interim order dated 13.9.2004 passed in writ petition no.36496 of 2004 is
being filed herewith and marked as Annexure
no.7 to this writ petition.
23. That in the
similar circumstances of the case, circumstances involving identical question
of law (involving silica sand), the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in a
writ petition no. 45687 of 2004 was pleased to direct the respondents that no
transit fee shall be realised from the petitioners in transporting the finished
produce i.e. silica sand etc.. The true copy of the interim order dated
1.11.2004 passed in writ petition no. 45687 of 2004 is being filed herewith and
marked as Annexure no.8 to
this writ petition.
24.
That all these facts may lead to an inscable conclusion,
that minerals are found and excavated and brought from the limit out side the
forest land/ area and as such none of mineral excavated in furtherance of
provisions of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 are the forest produce within the
meaning of section 2 (4)(b)(iv) of the
Forest Act.
25. That some of the
petitioners out of petitioners no.1 to 23 are also regulated by the provisions
of Factories Act, as the mineral found in side the mines area are converted to
marketable products in the factories and thereafter the same are sold to the
Traders in the market within territorial jurisdiction of entire country.
26. That out of total
35 petitioners, there are 23 petitioners having own mines from where they use
to excavate the mineral referred to above. The rest of petitioner no. 24 to 35
are the Traders purchasing the processed finished marketable mineral from the
petitioner no, 1 to 23. They may be treated as representing to larger number of
public, whose fundamentally rights are ruthlessly violated by realisation of
transit fees from non forest produce under the provisions of U.P. Transit of Timber and Other Forest
Produce Rules, 1978 by the respondents. None of mineral/ processed mineral/
marketable mineral may be considered as the forest produce from any angle as
the same is neither found, nor brought from the forest land/ forest area . Thus
the provisions of U.P. Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978
are not applicable. The true copy of the representations submitted by the
petitioners before the respondent no.3 on 31.12.2004 accompanied with the
affidavits in support of these averment are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure no.9 Collectively to
this writ petition.
27. That most of the
petitioners no. 1 to 23 are carrying their business for more than 40 years, but
they were not subjected by the State of Uttar Pradesh by levying transit fees.
Since the marketable produce are neither found, nor brought from any forest
area and as such no transit fees is levied upon them in the State of Uttar
Pradesh.
28. That the
respondent no.3 inspite knowing fully that after issuance of directions
contained in T.N. Godavarman
Thirumulkpad case (Supra), there is complete prohibition for excavation of
any mineral and it has also been regulated by the State of Uttar Pradesh in
relations to minor mineral by promulgating a Government order in furtherance of
the directions contained in the aforesaid case that no excavation is
permissible even within periphery of 100 Meters from the forest land and as
such the no objection certificate is required from the Divisional Forest
Officer by the State Govt. prior to giving any right for excavation of minor
mineral. The similar position as applicable in the State of Madhya Pradesh for
the purposes of getting excavation of mineral in furtherance of Mineral
Concession Rules, 1960. Thus if the transit fees is being realised by
transporting the excavated mineral from any part of country as that of forest
produce by the State of Uttar Pradesh, the same will render the directions
contained in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad and other case as
redundant, obsolete and non-existent.
29. That it is well
settled proposition of law that the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court are binding through out country under Article 141 of the Constitution of
India. The respondent no.2 to 5 are realising the transit fees from mineral
transported at the rate of Rs. 38/- per Ton and thereby contemplating/
declaring that the directions given by the Hon’ble Apex Court have either being
provoked or the same has been done in derogations to the aforesaid directions,
which are considered to be law of nation.
30. That in this
manner, it is totally unconstitutional and void ab initio to realise the
transit fees from the petitioners in furtherance of provisions of U.P. Transit
of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978. The same is prohibited in
respect of such realisation by respondent no.2 to 5 as the mineral excavated
from the revenue area may not be tantamount from any angle as that of forest
produce as defined under section 2 (4)(b) of the Forest Act. Thus the
directions may be issued to the respondents not to realise any transit fees from
the mineral transported through the vehicles carrying mineral /processed
mineral/ marketable mineral from the State of Madhya Pradesh carrying and
passing through the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners may not be
compelled to get themselves registered under Rule 21 and 23 of the U.P. Transit
of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978 by the respondent no. 3.
31. That under these
circumstances, it is expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon’ble
Court may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents not to realise any
transit fees from the mineral transported through the vehicles carrying mineral
/processed mineral/ marketable mineral from the State of Madhya Pradesh
carrying and passing through the State of Uttar Pradesh.
32. That it is further
prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent no.3 not
to compel the petitioners to get themselves registered under Rule 21 and 23 of
the U.P. Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978.
33. That the
petitioners have got not other alternative remedy except to approach this
Hon’ble Court by way of filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
34. The present writ
petition is being filed on the following amongst other grounds :-
GROUNDS
a.
Because, all the petitioners are carrying on
their business in mineral namely Red
Ochre ( Geru ), Yellow Ochre ( Pili
Mitti) , while earth Buxite, white earth and lime stone, which is neither found,
nor brought from the Forest Area and the same is excavated from outside the
Forest Land in vie of mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad versus Union
of India (1997) 2 S.C.C. Page 267; A.I.R. 1997 S.C. page 1228 followed by
(1997) 3 S.C.C. page 312 and (1997) 10 S.C.C. Page 775 followed by further
directions in the aforesaid case and as such the same is not the forest produce
within the definition of section 2 (4) (b) (iv) of the Forest Act.
b.
Because, the realisation of transit fees in
furtherance of U.P. Transit of Timber
and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978 are only permissible, when the
material transported through the territorial jurisdiction of the respondents is
found and brought from a forest land and as such classified as Forest produce
in furtherance of provisions of U.P. Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce
Rules, 1978.
c.
Because, in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad case
(Supra), it has been prohibited to get the excavation of mineral from any
forest area or forest land and as such it is not permissible to violate the
aforesaid directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court by any State Government in
the India.
d.
Because this petition is also having the touch
of Public Interest as large number of vehicles carrying the non Produce mineral
excavated from non forest area/ land is subjected to get arbitrary registered
by the respondents and Transit Fees is Illegally charged upon such Mineral (non
Forest Produce) using the police power and as such it may be treated as Public Interest
Litigation for redressal of grievances of public at large.
e.
Because
the minerals namely Red Ochre (Geru), Yellow Ochre ( Pili Mitti), white Ochre (
Khadia), white earth and lime stone are used for religious purposes inside the temple and on
the deity of different vedic Hindu Religious functions as well as
white earth ( Khadia) in imparting education to primary level students in
village and also the use of different Ayrvedic Medicine preparation. It is
submitted that bauxite is used for manufacturing of alum (Raw Fitkari), which
is used for purification of water and also used for medicine preparation. The said minerals are non forest produce
mineral and as such the charging of the
alleged Transit Fees on the transportation of these material may effect the
cost escalation to the majority of citizens using these mineral effecting their
fundamental and legal rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1) (a) (c) &
(f), 21, 25,and 26 read with article 45 0f constitution of India. Thus the
present writ petition may be treated apart from individual legal rights of the
petitioner, also in the form as Public Interest Litigation/ social Action
Litigation for the protection of the
legal rights of the Children, citizens at large suffering on account of cost
escalation of these mineral.
f.
Because this Hon’ble Court has directed the
respondents in writ petition no.36406 of 2004 ( Darshan Lal Chawla and another
Vs. State of U. P. and others )( Annexure No.7) not to realise the transit fees
from the furnished products i.e. Silica Sands
on 13.09.2004 and the similar order has been passed in writ petition no.
45687 of 2004 (M/S Bhulli Maharaj and 8 others vs. State of U. P. through
Secretary Forest and 5 others)( Annexure No. 8) on 1.11.2004. The case of the
petitioner being identical and as such the petitioners also entitled to
obtained the similar order in the present writ petition.
g.
Because, the regulations of transit by issuance
of pass under Rule 3,4 and 5 is only meant for regulating transit of forest
produce, but the same is not applicable in respect of none forest produce
materials and as such realisation of transit fees from the petitioners is
violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
h.
Because, all the petitioners have moved their applications
/ representations duly supported by the affidavits to the Conservator of
Forest, Bundelkhand Circle, Jhansi, in which they have categorically stated
that realisation of transit fees is illegal , but still then the petitioners
are subjected to harassment by compelling them to get the foreign passes under
Rule 21 and 23 of the U.P. Transit of
Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978, which is only applicable in
case of material transported is a forest produce and not otherwise.
i.
Because, this Hon’ble Court in case of Sonebhadra Minor Mineral Lease/Permit
Holders Association Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and other bearing writ
petition no. 5339 of 2002 has held that no transit fees could be realised
from other than forest produce and as such there is no power vested with the
respondents to enforce the registration of foreign passes or to realisation of
transit fees from the petitioners.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may
graciously be pleased to :-
(i)
issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
of mandamus directing the respondents not to realise the Transit Fees or to
enforce the registration of foreign pass from the mineral / marketable minerals
belonging to the petitioners transported through the vehicles in furtherance of
provisions of Rules 3,4 and 5 and Rule 21 and 23 respectively of U.P. Transit
of Timber and other Forest Produce
Rules, 1978.
(ii)
Issue any other suitable order or direction
which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present circumstance of
the case.
Dated/- 14th January, 2005 (YOGESH KUMAR SAXENA)
ADVOCATE.
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS
Chamber
No. 139
IN
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD.
AFFIDAVIT
IN
CIVIL
MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.
OF 2005
(Under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India)
(DISTRICT – BANDA)
M/S Neogy and Sons, Jaitwara, District- Satna (M.P.)
Through its Partner Ashok Kumar Neogy,
s/o Late
Anil Kumar Neogy, resident of Jaitwara,
District-
Satna (M.P.) and 34 others
VERSUS
State of Uttar Pradesh, through
Secretary,
Forest Department, Secretariat, U.P.
Lucknow. and others
………………….RESPONDENTS.
Affidavit of Suresh Kumar Agrawal aged
about 53 years S/o Late Shri Beni Madhao Agrawal, R/o- Village jaitwara, Tehsil
Raghuraj Nagar( Majhgawa), District- Satna ( Madhya Pradesh)
( DEPONENT)
I, the above
named Deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:
1. That the deponent is the Partner of the
petitioner no. 2 and has been authorised by the petitioners to file his
affidavit in support of the contents of the above noted writ petition and as
such he is fully acquainted with the facts deposed to below.
That the
contents of paragraph 1 of this affidavit and those of paragraphs no.1, 4, 7,
8, 9, 12, 16, 21, 24, 25, 26, 32, of the writ petition are true to the personal
knowledge of the deponent, those of
paragraph no., 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20,
22, 23, 27, of the affidavit are based on perusal of records and those of
paragraph no2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 17, 19, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, of the
writ petition are based on legal advice, which also deponent believes to be true that nothing material has
been concealed and that no part of this affidavit is false.
So help me God.
( Deponent
)
I, Yogesh
Kumar Saxena Advocate High Court Allahabad do hereby identify the deponent from
perusal of the papers in his possession and I am satisfied that he is the same
person making this affidavit.
( Yogesh Kumar Saxena)
Advocate
Registration No.946 of 1974
L.T.I. of the Deponent
Solemnly affirmed before me this------------------day of
-----------------2005--------at A.M./ P.M. by the deponent who is identified by
the aforesaid clerk/ Advocate.
I have satisfied
myself examining the deponent that he understands the contents of this
affidavit, Which have been read over and explained to him by me.
Oath
Commissioner
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
AT ALLAHABAD.
ANNEXURE NO.
IN
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2005
(Under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India)
(DISTRICT – BANDA)
M/S Neogy and Sons, Jaitwara,
District- Satna (M.P.)
Through
its Partner Ashok Kumar Neogy, s/o Late
Anil
Kumar Neogy, resident of Jaitwara, District-
Satna
(M.P.) and 34 others
VERSUS
State
of Uttar Pradesh, through Secretary,
Forest
Department, Secretariat, U.P. Lucknow. and others
………………….RESPONDENTS.
