Nitendra Singh & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Alok Singh, J

Common questions of facts and law are involved in all the five writ petitions, therefore, all the petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

Counter affidavit filed by Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation is taken. Misc. applications no. 4667, 4664, 4697 and 4666 of 2019 stand disposed of.

Petitioners are the truck (dumper) owners and are doing mining work. Petitioners' trucks are registered with the Divisional Logging Manager (Mining), Nandhaur. Petitioners' trucks being old were not in a condition to operate, therefore, petitioners approached respondent no. 4 - Divisional Logging Manager (Mining), Nandhaur for replacement of old truck with new ones. Divisional Logging Manager (Mining), Nandhaur did not pay heed to the grievance of the petitioners. Therefore, feeling aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court.

Dr. Udyog Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners submits that respondent no. 2 took policy decisions in its meeting dated 20.11.2014 and 25.02.2015 that vehicle owners can registered for mining activities new vehicles in place of non operational vehicles. He further submits that vide orders dated 25.02.2019, 2. 01.2019, 15.01.2019, 07.02.2019 and 02.03.2019 (Annexure No. 7 to the Writ Petition No. 760 (MS) of 2019) several persons have been permitted to replace their old vehicles for the mining session 2018-19.

In paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 4, it is stated that as per policy dated 31.08.2018, for the mining session 2018-19 there is no such direction issued by the District Mining Committee and if other Mining Division of the Corporation have replaced the old vehicles with the new vehicles without there being any direction, the same is their own responsibility.

From perusal of Annexure No. 7 to the WPMS No. 760 of 2019, it clearly transpires that replacement orders were issued by respondent no. 4 after issuance of policy dated 31.08.2018. Orders annexed as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition are still in existence. Therefore, respondent no. 4 cannot take two different stands. On the one hand, he is saying there is no permission from District Mining Committee and on the other hand, he himself has passed orders for replacement.

Accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed. Respondent no. 4 is directed to permit the petitioners to replace their old vehicles with new ones and register the new vehicles of the petitioners for mining work within three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

Let copy of this judgment be placed in each connected petition.