EMERALD INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REGARD being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in W. P No. 2841/2008, W. P No. 2842/2008 and W. P No. 2957/2008, they were heard analogously together and disposed of by this singular order. For the sake of convenience, the facts in Writ Petition No. 2841/2008 are exposited herein.

(2.) PETITIONER before this Court has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by the action of the State of U. P in recovering transit fee on transit of crushed stone (Ballast ).

(3.) THE petitioner has stated before this Court that the petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act and engaged in the business of mining block stone (Ballast) and its supply to Railways and other private parties. The petitioner has further stated that a lease was granted in favour of one Smt. Prashila Bhansali by the respondent No. 2 Collector, Gwalior and a No Objection Certificate was also granted by the Forest Department wherein it has been categorically reflected that the land in question is a revenue land, situated at a distance of 10 Kms from the forest area and a no objection certificate was issued certifying that the land is not a forest land keeping in the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the; case of T. N. Godaverman Thirumalkapad Vs. Union of India AIR 97 (SC) 1228. The petitioner has also stated that he is regularly paying the transit fee. It has further been stated by the petitioner that the petitioner Company is regularly depositing the transit fee under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Minor minerals Rules 1996, however, the moment it is transporting the ballast to the State of U. P, the State of U. P is illegally charging the transit fee. The contention of the petitioner is that the transit fee is being charged from the petitioner by virtue of notification dated 14th June 2004 issued by the State Government and the same is payable only in respect of forest produce. In the present case the levy of transit fee by the State Government of U. P is in question. The contention of the petitioner is that as no forest produce is being transported, no transit fee can be charged by the State of U. P in the facts and circumstances of the case.