ANINDYA SUNDAR DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this public interest petition, the petitioner has challenged the notifications dated 12th of July, 2022 and 29th of September, 2022 imposing fee for availing benefit of Online Queue Management System upon the transporters/exporters exporting their goods to Bangladesh from various international border checkposts located at Indo-Bangladesh Border.

(2.) The plea of the petitioner is that such imposition of fee imposes unreasonable restrictions upon trucks carrying goods from reaching the international border checkposts and that exorbitant high fee without any commensurate service being provided against such fee has been imposed by the State. It has further been pleaded that small scale exporters will be unable to pay such exorbitant fee mandatorily which will prevent such exporters from conducting their business resulting in financial losses to them. It has further been alleged that the respondent no. 1 has ignored the hardships being faced by all exporters, transporters, traders and manufacturers and that the notifications suffer from vice of violation of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and are also violative of Article 265 of the Constitution. It is also alleged that the action of the State is contrary to the trade policy and the impugned notifications are causing undue financial hardship to the Sec. of the business community including exporters without offering any commensurate service in exchange for the fee being charged.

(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the State has no authority to levy such a fee which is in the nature of compulsory extraction of money from the exporters/transporters. He further submits that any such charge can be levied only under the Customs Act and that the exporters are governed by the Customs Act and the State has no power to regulate the export. He has further submitted that the action of the State is in violation of Articles 366(29A), 265 and 246A of the Constitution of India and it also offends Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. He has also submitted that the impugned notifications impinge foreign trade policy framed under Sec. 5 of the Foreign Trade and Development Act. His submission is that the levy is mandatory because any vehicle not paying the levy will be pushed back in queue and its movement will be impeded. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs. Sharadkumar Jayantikumar Pasawalla and Others reported in (1992) 3 SCC 285, in the matter of Federation of Indian Mineral Industries and Others vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2017) 16 SCC 186 and in the matter of Asian Leather Limited and Anr. vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. reported in 2007 SCC OnLine Cal 268.