(1) This writ petition challenges the levy of toll at Lakhanpur. Nagrota, Banihal and other places under the Levy of Tolls Act, 1995 B, (wrongly put as 1955 A. D. in the writ petition, or under the law in force authorising such a levy. It further challengs the levy of toll of one rupee a maund on all goods imported into the State at Lakhanpur. The contents of the brief petition are as follows: -

(2) That the petitioner who is a permanent resident of the State of Jammu and Kashmir is charged road toll at Lakhanpur, Nagrota and Banihal as prescribed by the Levy of Tolls Act, 1995, corresponding to 1938 A. D (wrongly put in the petition is 1955). These three places are situated on the National Highway as declared by the National Highways Act. 1956 The State further realises Rupee 1/- per manud on all goods imported in the State by road. The Central Act does not authorise imposition of any levy as Road Toll on any National Highway except in terms of Section 7 of the Act. The levies above referred to are not covered by the Section. The levy of Tolls Act has been repealed by the National High ways Act because the National Highway vests in the Central Government. The Central Act could not levy any such toll. These two levies are illegal The Central Government had been moved in this behalf. It had called the comments of the State Government as far as back as 1963 but the toll is being still levied. The imposition of this toll may be declared illegal.

(3) This writ petition has been contested by the State. The State contends that the impost is valid and does not militate against any provision of the Constitution. The impugned Act falls within the residuary legislative field of the State and the State was competent to levy this tax as would appear from list II of the VII Schedule of the Constitution of India (Entry 59) as applied to the State. The petition is misconceived.

(4) When the case was admitted on 9-3-1966 it was ordered that the case be heared by a Division Bench. By an order of the Division Bench dated 13th of December, 1966 the case was ordered to be put before the Full Bench. Ultimately it was heard by the Full Bench.

(5) We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

(6) The brief argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the National Highways Act (Act No. XLVIII of 1956) was enacted in the year 1956 and came into force on15-4-1957. It applies to the State of Jammu and Kashmir also. Under the schedule to the Act, at serial No. 2 IA the Highway connecting Jullunder, Madhopur, Jammu, Banihal, Srinagar, Baramulla and Uri has been declared to be a National Highway under section 2 of the said Act. Under section 4 of the same Act all National Highways shall vest in the Union. Mr. I. D. Grover further argued that after the National Highway had vested in the Union of India, the State Government rendered no service or benefits for which it could charge any fee or tax. Under section 7 itself fees could be charged by the Central Government of rendering certain service or benefits. As the State Government had nothing to do with this Highway now, the question of its rendering any service therefore does not arise and therefore the tax was illegal. After the said Act i. e. the National Highways Act, 1956 came into force the levy of Tolls Act of 1938 of the State stands automatically repealed because under entry No. 20 of Vllth Schedule, Union List, Highways declared by or under law made by Parliament to be National Highways, is central subject. Under -Article 246 (1) of Constitution of India Parliament has exclusive power to make such laws with respect to any of the matter enumerated in List I in the seventh Schedule, Union List. Similarly under clause (3) the State Legislature has exclusive power to make laws for such State or any part thereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List II in the seventh Schedule, State List. Under Article 251 of the Constitution of India the