By the Court.—The petitioners having registered stone crushers situated at various places in District Bijnor have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the collection and demand of transit fee on stone grit/chips transported by the petitioners from their stone crushers to other places in the State of U.P.

2. The case set out by the petitioners in brief is that they purchase stones, boulders and rocks from Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation and pay transit fee to the forest authorities of Forest Department of Uttarakhand in the said State. However, when they transport and bring in aforesaid items to their stone crushers situated in District Bijnor, on the entry in the State of U.P. the forest department of U.P. also charges transit fee on the said items under the provisions of U.P. Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “1978 Rules”). The aforesaid items, namely, stones, boulders and rocks etc. are taken to the petitioners’ crushing units situated in Najibabad, in District Bijnor whereat after crushing of the said items, the petitioners gets grit and chips of different sizes, namely, stone dust, 6 mm grit, 10 mm grit, 20 mm grit, 40 mm grit and 65 mm grit etc., which are residuary items resulting from process of crushing of the said stones, boulders and rocks. The aforesaid crushed items when transported from petitioners’ stone crushers to other places, the officials of Forest Department of the State of U.P. again require the petitioners to pay transit fee under 1978 Rules on the ground that being forest produce, petitioners are liable to pay transit fee on the said items again. It is this levy which is under challenge in this writ petition.

3. Sri V.K. Singh learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S. Shekhar vehemently argued that after crushing stones, boulder and rocks etc. the ultimate products resulted from crushing are not of different nature and the nature of the primary item remains the same. It is only reduction of size which is commonly known as grit. In the crushing process stone dust is also produced which is a residuary item. He, therefore, submits that since there is no change in the nature of the product, therefore, it cannot be said that a new item has been produced by the petitioners after undergoing the process of crushing of stones, boulders, rocks etc. and, therefore, transit fee having paid once cannot be charged again on the said items while transported in the State of U.P. Alternatively, he contended that if it is a new produce different than boulders, rocks etc. and is not something found in the forest, then it ceases to be a ‘forest produce’ and then also no transit fee on the said items in the State of U.P. is chargeable under 1978 Rules. Thirdly, though meekingly he contended that Forest Act is a Central Act having been enacted by the Parliament and, therefore, on ‘forest produce’ found in one State, if a person has already paid transit fee in that State, he is not liable to pay transit fee in other States, even for once and, therefore, in the present case, in the State of U.P., levy of transit fee on transportation of boulders, rocks, stones etc. when it is brought in the State of U.P. from Uttarakhand after payment of transit fee in that State is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction since the petitioners have already paid transit fee to the Forest Authorities in Uttarakhand.

4. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit. The stand taken by the respondents is that under 1978 Rules, transit fee is payable as and when a person is required to obtain transit pass under Rule-3 thereof. Since, in every transit pass, the quantity, destination, period of transportation is mentioned, therefore, as and when there is any change of destination or period of transportation etc., another pass would be required to be obtained by the person concerned and for that purpose, he has to pay transit fee again. It is the