Nitin Agarwal vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

V.K. Bist, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. List this petition alongwith WPMS No. 1420 of 2012 on the date fixed in that petition. By that time, respondents may file counter affidavit.

The petitioner has been granted permission for storage of raw material i.e. river bed material by the S.D.M., Ramnagar vide order dated 19.05.2013 under the provision of U.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The petitioner purchases river bed material i.e. boulders, natural sand and gravel etc. from respondent no. 3 on payment of royalty and other charges. The petitioner is questioning the validity and legality of Rule 5(i) of The Uttarakhand Transit of Timber and Other Forest Produce Rules, 2012, by which, transit fee on forest produce, being transported in the State has been levied @ Rs. 50/- per tonne.

Prior to the enforcement of the aforesaid Rules, the levy was being charged @ Rs. 5/- under The U.P. Transit of Timber and Other Forest Produce Rules, 1978.

The U.P. Rules of 1978 was being followed by the State of Uttarakhand, but now these Rules of 1978 has been substituted by the Rules of 2012. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Rules of 2012 are pari materia to the Rules of 1978 except for the rate of transit fee.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that several other writ petitions have been filed before this Court, challenging the said Rules. This Court has granted interim orders in those writ petitions.

Considering the aforesaid facts, since the validity of the Rules have been questioned, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is also entitled for a similar relief, subject to certain modifications, since the Court is of the opinion that the State Government cannot run on stay orders and certain amount of revenue is required to be generated by the State Government in order to survive.

Considering the aforesaid, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner will pay a sum of Rs. 15/- per tonne per lorry as transit fee, during the pendency of the writ petition, for the forest produce being transported inside the State. For the balance amount, the petitioner including its agents and transporters will give an undertaking before the Forest Department to the effect, that in the event, the writ petition is dismissed, they would be liable to pay the balance amount within three months from the date of judgment. On the other hand, the Court directs the Forest Department to issue the transit pass on the basis of the aforesaid and, will also keep a record of the movement of the forest produce, namely, the details of the forest produce, the quantity, the value, the name of the consigner and consignee, place of origin, destination, vehicles numbers, etc. Such record will be maintained by the Forest Department and will be countersigned by the petitioner at the time of the issuance of the transit fee. Stay application (CLMA No. 6848/2013) also stands disposed of.