- (1.) PALOK Basu, J. Ashok Kumar Jaiswal, petitioner has filed this writ petition (24893 of 1996) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying the following reliefs: 1. Writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 26-6-1996 and 27-6-1996 (Annexures land 2 ).
(2.) WRIT of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to compel the petitioner for registration under the provisions contained in the U. P. Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978 (In short 'rules') 2. When this writ petition was filed on 6-8-19% a counter affidavit was called. That having been filed a rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. The other writ petition (24894 of 1996) is filed by Rajendra Kumar Agrahari with identical prayers. The distinction in the facts of the two writ petitions is that while Ashok Kumar Jaiswal claims to be having a mining lease for excavating sand in the State of Madhya Pradesh, the other petitioner Rajendra Kumar Agrahari claims to be haying a mining lease for excavating stone chips there. In this case also affidavits have been exchanged. As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, these two petitions are being disposed of finally at the admission stage. Before adverting to the relevant facts in these two petitions it may be noticed that the Indian Forest Act (in short, the Act) has been in force since the year 1927 and it applies to the State of Uttar Pradesh by virtue of notifications made by the Government of India under Section 1 (8 ). Section 2 of the Act defines various words used in the enactment and Sub-section (4) thereof defines "forest produce". For ready reference Sub-section (4) is quoted here: " (4) "forest produce" includes: - (a) the following whether found in, or brought from, a forest or not, that is to say - timber, charcoal caoutchoue, catechu, wood-oil, resin, natural varnish, bark, lac, mahua flowers, mahua seeds, kuth and myrabolams, and (b) the following when found in, or brought from, a forest, that is to say: (i) trees and leaves, flowers and fruits, a dati other parts of produce not hearinbefore mentioned, of trees, (ii) plants not being trees (including grass, creepers, reeds and cross), and all parts of produce of such plants, (iii) wild animals any skins, tusks, horns, bones, silk, cocoons, honey, and wax, and all other parts or produce of animals, and (v) peat, surface soil, rock and minerals including lime-stone, lateril mineral oils, and all products of mines or quarries)".
(3.) FOR the controversy in the instant case the language used in clause (b) sub-clause (iv) is relevant. As is obvious from the definition "forest produce" includes minerals and all products of mines or quarries. It has not been disputed, nor can it possibly be that stone chips ad well as sand (morrum) are product of quarries and are obviously Minerals within the meaning of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1967 under which the State of U. P. has framed Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963. It may further be relevant to point out here that in the State of Madhya Pradesh also there are Minor Minerals Rules which have been referred to during the course of arguments as Madhya Pradesh Village Minning Rules, 1961 and winning Riyayat Rules, 1960.;