The main legal point established in the judgment is that the goods transported by the petitioners were considered forest produce and thus subject to transit fee under the U. P. (Transport of Timber and other Forest Produce) Rules, 1978.

( 1 ) IN this is batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the realisation of transit fee on transport of stone chips, stone grit, stone ballast, sand, morrum, coal, lime stone, dolomite etc. , which they transport within the State of U. P. and sell to different purchasers. The petitioners have also challenged the validity of the notification dated 14. 6. 2004 issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh amending the U. P. (Transport of Timber and other Forest Produce) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" ).

( 2 ) CIVIL Misc. Writ Petition No. 975 of 2004 is being treated as the leading petition. Briefly stated, the facts of the aforementioned petition are as follows:according to the petitioners, they have been- granted mining lease by the District Magistrate, sonebhadra, for excavation of boulders, rocks, sand and morrum in the district of Sonebhadra from the plots situated on the land owned by the State Government which do not come within any forest area. The petitioners allege that they do not carry on any mining operation in the forest area. After excavation of boulders, rocks, sand and morrum etc. , they transport the goods from the site to the destination by truck. The petitioners convert the stone and boulder into Gitti. It is the case of the petitioners that while transporting the goods, it does not pass through the forest area and they are not using any forest road for the purpose of transportation of their goods. They pay royalty to the State Government under the provisions of the U. P. Minor Minerals Concession rules, 1963 @ Rs. 30/- per cubic metre. Prior to the amendment in the Rules, by notification dated 14. 6. 2004, a fee of Rs. 5/- per tonne of lorry load on timber and other forest produce was payable by the person carrying or transporting the forest produce which the petitioners were paying. However, vide notification dated 14. 6. 2004, the Rules have been amended and a fee of rs. 38/- per tonne has been levied. The increase of the fee from Rs. 5/-to Rs. 38/- is under challenge in the present batch of petitions.

( 3 ) IN the counter affidavit filed by Sri. R. P. Mali, Assistant Conservator of Forest, Chopan, forest Division Obra, district Sonebhadra, on behalf of the respondents 1 to 6, it has been stated that the petitioners are procuring the grit, boulder etc. from the land of village Billi Markundi notified under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). They are carrying out mining operations in the forest land. It has also been stated that the petitioners of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28290 of 2004 are procuring river sand of river Son from the land village Patwah/chopan and Sasnai notified under Section 4 of the Act. In respect of the writ petitions of the district of Sonebhadra, it has been stated that the notification under section 4 of the Act was issued in the year 1969-70 and forest settlement process started, however, during the course of the settlement, the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Vanwasi sewa Ashrams case, vide judgment dated 20. 11. 1986, directed the forest authorities to decide the legitimate rights of Adiwasis and Girijan living in south of Kaimur hills on their ancestral land holdings. The petitioners have been granted mining leases/permits by the District magistrate and after the promulgation of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, the Forest department strongly opposed the mining operation and the permits were stopped. One dharmendra Kumar Singh holding a mining lease in village Billi Markundi, filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1126 of 2004 in which it was held that the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was not applicable to the area notified under Section 4 of the Act. The State of U. P. , feeling aggrieved, filed Civil Appeal No 4956 of 1989 before the Apex Court and the Apex Court, vide judgment and order dated 11. 10. 1989, had set aside the order passed by this Court. It has held that the