D.S. Bajpai, J. - (1.) IN this bunch of 78 writ petitions, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, validity of Rules 5 and 28 of U.P. Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978, (For short, the Rules) is challenged. Consequently, there is a prayer to strike down those Rules by writ as Certiorari and for a writ of Mandamus to command the opposite parties, namely, State of U.P., and the concerned officers of the Forest Department, not to realise transit fees or impose penalty upon the petitioners for sake of convenience, writ petition No. 5601 of 1984 has been treated to be the leading case; consideration has also been given to the points arising in other writ petitions as well. The petitioners carry on trade in timber at various places; most of them are proprietors or Partnerships Firms dealing in wholesale business, and a few of them are also Commission Agents who purchase timber for others. All these purchases are made from the private owners of trees/Forests or the forest produce brought by them into market yard. The purchases are made within the market yard of different Mandi Samitis, situated at different places, constituted under U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964. The petitioners thereafter sell the timber to other persons within the market yard and further arrange to transport the sold timber to the purchasers at different outstations, outside the market yard of origin. When the goods thus sold and transported move out of the market yard and are on their way, the vehicles, mostly trucks, are intercepted by the staff of the Forest Department of Government of U.P. and are required to produce passes under Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short the Act). If they do not carry the requisite pass, a transit fee, as prescribed under Rule 5 of the Rules, is charged from them. In addition to the fee, penalty, as alleged by the petitioners, is realised from them under Rule 28 read with Section 42 of the Act. It is this levy of transit fee and imposition of penalty, in default of holding a transit pass, which is under challenge in these petitions.
(2.) IN reply to the most of the writ petitions, counter affidavits have been filed, in one case, namely, Writ Petition No. 5601 of 1985, a rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. We have had the benefit of considering elaborate arguments submitted on behalf of the petitioners by Sarvshri K.B. Sinha, Hari Om Singh, and S.M.K. Chowdhary; other learned counsel for the petitioners, e.g., Sarvshri Satish Chandra Sitapuri and Shafiq Mirza and S.P. Shukla, have adopted the same arguments.
(3.) WE have also the benefit of hearing the lucid arguments of the learned Advocate General of U.P. Shri V.B. Upadhya assisted by Shri Rakesh Sharma. We have been taken through the relevant material contained in the records.;