JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Bhagwati Prasad Singh learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vivek Kumar Singh learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The petitioners herein are challenging the orders dated 6.7.2021 passed by the respondent No. 2 namely the Secretary, U.P. State Biodiversity Board and the consequential order dated 20.7.2021 passed by the respondent No. 3 namely the Divisional Director, Social Forestry, Forest Division, Prayagraj asking the petitioners to comply with the provisions of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act, 2002''), by depositing the Access and benefit sharing amount in Form 1' of the Biological Diversity Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules, 2004'') and Form 'Ka' of the Regulations, 2014 framed under the Act, 2002.

3. The petitioners herein are manufacturers of bidi and are registered partnership firms and company under the relevant Acts. For the purposes of their business, they are registered under the G.S.T. Act with the competent authority as well as the U.P. Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman Adhiniyam) Adhiniyam, 1972 [herein referred to as ''the Tendu Patta Act'' or U.P. Act No. 19 of 1972, as and where the reference requires] with the Forest Department of the State of the Uttar Pradesh.

The registration period of the petitioners under the U.P. Act No. 19 of 1972 is one year which has been renewed from time to time in accordance with the statutory provisions. The last renewal being for the year 2021, the petitioners are certified to carry on the business of manufacturing bidi.

4. The arguments of the learned Senior Advocate to challenge the orders impugned are two folds.

Firstly, it is contended that the petitioners are engaged in manufacturing bidi for the past several years and they are purchasing Tendu leaves from the respective State Department, inasmuch as, the collection and purchase of Tendu leaves have been monopolized by the State Government under the U.P. Act No. 19 of 1972. It is contended that under the Tendu Patta Act, 1972 the collection, sale, purchase and transportation of Tendu leaves is solely regulated by the State Government. The petitioners only purchase Tendu leaves from the respective State Department to use it to wrap the bidi as a ''value added product'' and do not purchase Tendu leaves from their growers or collectors and as such would not fall within the meaning of 'Traders' under the Act, 2002. After manufacturing bidi, they sell it as a ''value added product'' in the open market and, therefore, would not fall within the meaning of ''manufacturer'' from ''biological resources'' for ''commercial utilization'' as per the Act, 2002. It is the State Government which can only be termed as 'trader' of Tendu leaves and since the business or the commercial activities of the petitioners is/are regulated by the U.P. Act No. 19 of 1972, the provisions of the Act, 2002 would not be applicable.

In the second limb of submissions, it is argued that various notices in the month of December, 2020 and January, 2021 were issued to each petitioners separately, requiring them to comply with the provisions of Sections 7 of 24 of the Act, 2002. A common reply to the said notices was given by the petitioners on 25.2.2021 addressed to the Secretary, U.P. State Biodiversity Board, Lucknow raising objection with regard to the applicability of the Act, 2002. It was specifically pleaded therein that the Act, 2002 is in no way applicable to the petitioners and they cannot be made liable for any benefit sharing under the Act, 2002 or the Rules and the Regulations framed thereunder. The bidis manufactured by the petitioners' firms/Companies being ''value added'' product wherein other material as well are used which are excluded from the definition of the ''biological resources'' as defined under Section