GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Pankaj Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri U.K. Uniyal, the learned Advocate General, assisted by Sri Paresh Tripathi, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Connect with WPMS No.1420 of 2012.

(2.) LEARNED Addl. C.S.C. for the State/respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 is allowed four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Thereafter, three weeks' time is allowed to the petitioners to file rejoinder affidavit. List this matter for admission and final disposal immediately after the expiry of the aforesaid period.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand submitted that the State of Uttarakhand has the power and the competence to frame its own Rules, which Rules have been framed. The competence of the Rules of 1978 has been upheld by the Supreme Court. The State has the power to enhance the fee. The fee of Rs.5/-, which was being charged from 1978, is now, if inflation is to be considered, goes up to Rs.200/- and, therefore, the demand of Rs.50/- as transit fee is very reasonable. Considering the aforesaid facts, since the validity of the Rules have been questioned and the same has been struck down by the Allahabad High Court, which matter is now pending consideration before the Supreme Court of India, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioners are 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 brought inside the State of Uttarakhand. For the balance amount, the petitioners including their 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 petitioners at the time of the issuance of the transit fee.