Dismissed

Bazpur Stone Crusher Pvt. Ltd. v. Rahul and Another

Uttarakhand HC5 Sept 2019CLCON/304/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of a writ order prohibiting the levy of transit fees was dismissed. The Court found that the Divisional Forest Officer's affidavit confirmed no transit fee was being charged from minor minerals removed from revenue land.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed; contempt notices against opposite parties discharged.

Bazpur Stone Crusher Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rahul and Another — Contempt of Court | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

CLCON No. 304 of 2014 Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

¶2

Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶3

Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶5

This contempt petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the judgment dated 23.09.2014 passed in WPMS No. 685 of 2014. Operative portion of the judgment is extracted below:-

¶6

“Consequently, writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents not to levy and recover the transit fee for the produce mentioned in clause (b) of Section 2(4) of the Indian Forest Act, if same are taken from the areas beyond the forest area and not brought from the forest area.”

¶7

A response affidavit has been filed by Divisional Forest Officer (opposite party no. 1), Tarai West Forest Division, Ramnagar. Para no. 7 of the said affidavit is extracted below: “7. That with regard to the contents of para no. 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the contempt petition it is submitted that as has already been state that the answering respondent is not charging/levying transit fee from the private khanan patta’s i.e. revenue land. The Hon’ble High Court has decided the writ petition no. 685 of 2014 (M/S) on 23.09.2014 and the answering respondent is complying with the above cited order. It is evident that the answering respondent had filed a counter affidavit in writ petition no. 685 of 2014 (M/S) where at para no. 9 of the counter affidavit it was specifically stated that no transit fee is being recovered on the material of the revenue land.”

¶8

From the stand taken by opposite party no. 1 in his affidavit, it is apparent that the Forest Department is not charging any transit fee from the minor mineral removed from areas other than forest land.

¶9

In such view of the matter, no contempt is made out. Accordingly, contempt petition is dismissed.

¶10

Contempt notices issued against opposite parties are hereby discharged.

¶11

(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.)

¶12

Navin 05.09.2019

Bazpur Stone Crusher Pvt. Ltd. v. Rahul and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bazpur Stone Crusher Pvt. Ltd. v. Rahul and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajveer Singh Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Rakesh Aggarwal Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Vinod Kumar Vs Jai Raj

Sanjay Massey Vs Miss v. Sherring

H.s.madhukar Vs Arun Yeshwant Pathak

M/S Dabur India Limited Vs Deepak Kumar Joshi