JUDGMENT

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.-Delay condoned.

2. Special leave granted.

3. The only question that is required to be determined in these appeals is about the validity of the levy of transit fee under Rule 5 of U.P. Transit of Timber and Other Forest Produce Rules, 1978 (for short the Rules ). The High Court has held the Rule to be constitutionally valid but levy of transit fee has been invalidated in absence of quid pro quo. The Rule has not been struck down as in the view of the High Court it is open to the State Government to support the levy of transit fee by rendering service as quid pro quo. This aspect alone is under challenge in these appeals filed by the State Government aggrieved by the conclusion of the High Court that the levy of transit fee is invalid.

4. The Rules have been framed in exercise of the powers under Sections 41, 42, 51 and 76 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Rule 3 provides for regulation of transit of forest produce by means of passes. It places restrictions on movement of forest produce without transit pass into or from or within the State of U.P. The imposition of fee is provided in Rule 5. Rule 14 provides for affixing of transit marks to timber. Rules 3