VIDYUT KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE both these writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner for the same relief and on the same subject-matter, hence both are heard and decided together by this common judgment.

(2.) HEARD Sri A. C. Tiwari, who is learned Counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions, Sri K. K. Chaurasia, who is learned Counsel for the petitioner in the first writ petition only and Sri A. B. Sinha, who is learned Counsel for the petitioner in the second writ petition only.

(3.) THEREAFTER, learned Counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions were called but this Court was further surprised to see the conduct of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that instead of fairly conceding the fault, they tried to justify the filing of successive petitions by the same petitioner in the same subject-matter. For considering the justification of filing of successive petitions, it is relevant to consider the relief sought by these writ petitions. The relief sought by the first writ y petition is quoted below : " (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to realize the transit fee by the petitioner for doing mining products and its lifting and transportation. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction for which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case. (iii) Award the costs of this writ petition in favour of the petitioner throughout. " The relief sought by the second writ petition is as under : (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari by declaring the provision of Section 2 (4) IV of Indian Forest Act, 1927 as ultra vires to the Indian Mines Act, 1952 as well as of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (iii) Award costs of this petition in favour of the petitioner. "