- (1.) The petitioners in each case were highest bidders in the auction which held on different dates relating to a forest produce known as Resin, the disposal of which is governed by the provisions contained in the U. P. Resin and other Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1976. According to the facts emerging in all these petitions, the issue raised is whether the petitioners can be asked to pay the difference between the price which they had bid and not paid for Resin and the subsequent sale price which was obtained by the Forest Department for the same produce, now being recovered as arrears of land revenue.
(2.) When the writ petitions were filed, a Division Bench of this Court called for counter affidavits and passed an interim order staying the recovery of the amount through the Citations from the petitioners. In response to the notices issued, the State of U.P. and its officials of the Forest Department have filed a counter affidavit in some of the cases and since the averments made therein are sufficient to deal with all the cases at hand in which rejoinder affidavit has also been filed, all the opposite parties were heard together finally as prayed by the learned counsel for the parties. Shri Namwar Singh assisted by Shri Sanjeev Singh, Shri A. N. Singh and Shri M.C. Kand Pal, learned counsel for the petitioners have been heard. Shri P. K. Pandey Standing Counsel has been heard for the opposite parties.
(3.) At the very outset, it should be stated that the learned counsel for the petitioners have raised several questions as to the validity of the demand made through the citations issued against all the petitioners. But the principal argument advanced was with regard to the rights of the respondents to recover as arrears of land revenue the difference of the price which was offered by the petitioners and not paid by them, and, the price which the resin actually fetched when purchased by the buyer in the subsequent auction/sale.;