WP(C) 2860/2011 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H BARUAH Heard Mr. MK Doley, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. Roy, learned Government Advocate who accepts notice on behalf of the State resp ondents. The petitioner herein is a stone crushing unit, situated at Parbotipur v illage, Jagun in the District of Tinsukia. This unit is used for the purpose of crushing and screening of stones and boulders, etc. into pieces of various grade s. It is also contended that the petitioner is running this stone crushing unit since 2006 and has been carrying and supplying the crushed stones and chips, etc . to the different destinations. It is alleged that the respondent authorities h ave been interfering with the day today activities of the petitioner and harassi ng the petitioner demanding the transit pass and transit challan etc. contending that the stone is a forest produce and such transit pass, etc. is required unde r the provisions of Assam Forest Regulation, 1891. It is contended by Mr. MK Dol ey, learned counsel for the petitioner that stone is not a forest produce under section 3(4) of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 and therefore, the petitioner has no obligation to pay royalty or fee or tax etc., under the Regulation. Since the forest officials, the respondents herein are demanding the transit pass etc ., for running of the stone crushing unit, the petitioner being aggrieved has p referred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents not to harass the p etitioner. It is submitted by Mr. MK Doley, learned counsel for the petitioner t hat by the act(s) on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner is s uffering from serious financial constraintment and it has also affected adversel y to his business. This court while disposing the case between M/s Rengfrah Stone Crusher & Others -vs- State of Assam & Others reported in 2008 (2) GLJ 578 held that sto ne is not a forest produce within the meaning of section 3(4) of the Regulation . Since this stone is not a forest produce, for crushing of the stone in t he petitioner’s unit, the transit pass, payment of royalty does not arise and th e respondent authorities therefore appear to harass the petitioner demanding the transit pass, payment on account of use of stones in the petitioner’s unit for crushing purpose. The petitioner herein being similar situated with that of the writ petition disposed vide order dated 23.7.2008 has referred to 2008 (2) of G LJ 578, the petitioner is entitled to similar reliefs as indicated therein. In view of the above, the respondent authorities are hereby directed not to insist/ demand of transit pass or challan for transportation of stones to th e petitioner’s plant for the purpose of crushing and transportation of the same to different destinations and also not to demand the royalty etc. With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.