T. Nandakumar Singh, J.

1. The review petitioners, the principal respondents in Writ Appeal No. 94 of 2000 filed by the respondents-writ petitioners, are seeking for review of the judgment and order of this Court (Division Bench) dated 06.02.2007 passed in Writ Appeal No. 94 of 2000 wherein and whereunder the review petitioners are directed to refund the transit pass fee collected by the review petitioners for facilitating the transportation of Betel Nut by the respondent/writ petitioners through all the check gates put up by the State Government, on the grounds that this Court while passing the order dated 06.02.2007 had the misconception of law regarding 'tax and fee'; such misconception shall result in miscarriage of justice and also the law is to bend before justice. Heard Mr. H.N.K. Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Genenanda, learned counsel for the review petitioners and Mr. Serto T. Kom, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioners.

2. The fact in detail, leading to filing of WP(C) No. 909 of 1999 by the respondent-writ petitioners are mentioned in the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 23.06.2000, wherein and whereunder the learned single Judge held that the review petitioners are not entitled to levy transit pass fee on Betel Nut imported from Myanmar and the matter for refund of the said fee is left to the State (Review Petitioners) and respondent-writ petitioners may approach the State to refund the amount deposited by the respondent-writ petitioners and the State shall pass necessary order in this regard; and in also the judgment and order of the learned Division Bench dated 06.02.2007, against which the review petitioners filed the present review petition, wherein the Division Bench had directed the review petitioners to refund the transit pass fee in four instalments.

3. In order to avoid repetition of facts, only bare minimal facts, sufficient for deciding the present review petition is noted.

The writ petitioners are the licensees, in whose favour import and export licences had been issued by the office of the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade, Guwahati, which is the concerned authority to issue trade licence to trade with Myanmar as per the Myanmar Border Trade agreement. Some of the items for export and import under the licence issued in favour of the respondent-writ petitioners are (1) Betel Nuts and Leaves, (2) Food items for local consumption, (3) Tobacco and tomato etc. etc. The Betel Nut is the item concerned in the present writ petition as well as the review petition.

4. It is stated that Betel Nut has been a minor forest product in Manipur and neighbouring States, by virtue of definition under Section 2(4)(b) of the Indian Forest Act, w.e.f. 19.12.1992 on which date rate of royalty was fixed and levying of fee is possible under Rule 36 (b) of the Manipur Forest Rules, 1971. The State of Manipur, Forest Department is directed by the Finance Department of the Government of Manipur to levy transit pass fee or service charge on all items including Betel Nut irrespective of its origin passing through the State of Manipur. Only after paying the transit pass fee/service charge/fee on Betel Nut by the respondent-writ petitioners, the State Government (Review Petitioners) made all necessary facilities and service for free movement and transportation of Betel Nut through all the check gates put up by the State Government. It is also stated that the fee being the Entry No. 66 of the State List, i.e. List No. 2 of 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India, in respect of any matter in the State List, the State Government passed the said order for imposing transit pass fee or service charge (fee) on Betel Nut for the said service rendered by the State Government

5. It is settled position of law that the principles of finality of the judgment of the superior Court should be maintained inasmuch as review petitions are not to be taken as a routine course