Kavinder Singh And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

This intra-Court appeal, under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, is preferred against the interlocutory order passed by the

learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 378 of 2020 dated 18.02.2020.

The appellants herein filed Writ Petition (M/S) No. 378 of 2020 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the Minutes of the Meeting of the District

Mining Committee dated 03.01.2020 to the extent it had directed commercial registration of tractors in order to transport river-bed material from the

mining lot of the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation; a writ of certiorari to quash Entry No. 3A of the notification dated 02.01.2019,

whereby tax is imposed on tractors as commercial motor vehicles which are used other than for agricultural purposes; and a writ of certiorari to quash

the advertisement dated 04.01.2020 whereby the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation, in purported compliance of the order of this Court in

Writ Petition (PIL) No. 162 of 2018 dated 26.10.2018, had imposed a pre-condition that tractors should be registered as commercial motor vehicles to

transport river-bed material, from the mining lot, to the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation.

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the appellants-writ petitioners are the owners of tractors-cum-trailers. The District Mining

Committee decided on 03.01.2020 to permit only tractors with commercial registration to transport river-bed material. In terms thereof, tractors,

registered for agricultural purposes, are prohibited from transporting river-bed material within the limits of the reserved forest. While a tractor, as a

motor vehicle, requires registration under the Motor Vehicles Act, the third respondent-Corporation also grants a license for such tractors to ply within

the reserve forest to carry river-bed material. The appellants-writ petitioners apprehend that, in addition to not permitting them to carry river bed

material, the third respondent-Corporation is likely to cancel their license also.

Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners, would submit that the decision of the District Mining Committee is based

on an erroneous understanding of the order of this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 162 of 2018 dated 26.10.2018; the Division Bench had not made

any distinction between tractors registered for commercial purposes, and tractors registered for agricultural purposes; the Minutes of the Meeting

dated 03.01.2020 falls foul of the aforesaid order of the Division Bench in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 162 of 2018 dated 26.10.2018; and the learned

Single Judge had, therefore, erred in dismissing the Interlocutory Application.

On the other hand Mr. Vikas Pande, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand, would submit that the scope of

interference in an intra-Court appeal, against an interlocutory order, is extremely limited; the learned Single Judge has merely exercised his discretion

not to interdict the decision of the District Mining Committee dated 03.01.2020, pending adjudication of the dispute in the Writ Petition; grant of the

interim relief, sought in the Writ Petition, would, in effect, amount to granting the main relief sought in the Writ Petition itself; and this Court may,

therefore, not be justified in interfering with such an order.

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge has opined that imposition of a condition by the third respondent-Corporation, that only such

tractors, which were registered for commercial purposes, would be permitted to transport river-bed material, was, prima facie, in consonance with the

law. The Interlocutory Application was, therefore, rejected and the Writ Petition was directed to be listed after three weeks.

It is not in dispute that the decision of the District Mining Committee dated 03.01.2020 is to permit only tractors, registered for commercial

purposes, to carry river-bed material from within the reserve forest. The question whether such a decision is arbitrary and is in violation of Article 14

of the Constitution of India, and whether it also falls foul of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 162 of 2018 dated

26.10.2018, are all questions which necessitate adjudication in the Writ Petition after the respondents file their respective counter-affidavits.

The appellants-writ petitioners would only be entitled to the interim relief sought for in the Writ Petition i.e. to permit them to ply tractors, registered

for agricultural purposes, to carry river-bed material, if the decision of the District Mining Committee dated 03.01.2020, is set aside. Granting the

interim relief, sought for in the Writ Petition, would, in effect, amount to allowing the Writ Petition itself. Exercise of discretion by the learned Single

Judge, in refusing to grant such an interim relief, does not warrant interference in an intra-Court appeal, as such exercise of discretion does not suffer

from any patent illegality.

While we find no reason to interfere with the order under appeal, suffice it to record the submission of both Mr. Vikas Pande, learned Standing

Counsel for the State Government, and Mr. V.K.Kaparuwan, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent-Corporation, that

they would file their respective counter-affidavits within three weeks from today.

We make it clear that the order now passed by us shall not disable the appellants-writ petitioners from requesting the learned Single Judge for an

out of turn hearing, of the Writ Petition, any day after three weeks from today.

Subject to the aforesaid observations, the Special Appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.