IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2388 of 2007 (M/S) M/s Sagar Stone Crusher Pvt. Ltd. Gram Devrampur, D-Class Haldwani, District Nainital, through its Director Rakesh Kumar Srivastava.. …… Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Department, Dehradun and three others. … Respondents. Sri C.K.Sharma & Sri Bhupendra Singh, Advocates, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State-respondents. Date November 11, 2009. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to realize transit fee on the finished products of the petitioner, namely stone grits, stone chips and sand which are produce in its stone crusher. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has established a stone crusher known as M/s Sagar Stone Crusher Pvt. Ltd. at village Devrampur, D-Class, Haldwani and has been carrying on the business of manufacturing stone chips, stone grits of different size, sand by crushing the boulders by using mechanical process. The raw material, i.e. boulders, is brought by the petitioner from Gola river after payment of royalty, transit fee, sales tax, income tax and other charges to the lessor in whose favour the right to collect the same is settled by the State Government. The respondent no. 2 vide order dated 14-6-1999 directed the respondent no. 3 to charge transit fee from the owners of the stone crusher upon the transit of produce of stone. Consequently, the respondent no.3 by his order dated 21-6-1999 directed to make 2 recovery of transit fee in view of the order dated 14-6-1999. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has been paying transit fee and after payment of the said fee, the stone is being transported from the river to his crusher, therefore, the respondents are not justified to compel the petitioner to pay transit fee again upon the finished product (stone grits) of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is making payment of the transit fee according to the Rules. The respondents cannot realize the transit fee twice from the petitioner on the articles manufactured/finished products. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment dated 20-8-2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1457 of 2008(M/S) M/s Bora Natural Sand and Stone Industries Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. It is pertinent to mention that Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 310 of 2005 (M/B) M/s Kumaon Pea Gravel Aggregate Manufacturing Co. and another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others has passed the order dated 30-3-2005 that transit fee cannot be realized twice on the same material under the Rules. The controversy involved in the present writ petition is identical to that of the Writ Petition No. 310 of 2005 (M/B). Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties and having perused the Division Bench Judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 310 of 2005 (M/B) M/s Kumaon Pea Gravel Aggregate Manufacturing Co. and another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others, I am of the view that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed in terms of the said judgment dated 30-3-2005. 3 Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the Division Bench judgment dated 30-3-2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 310 of 2005 (M/B) M/s Kumaon Pea Gravel Aggregate Manufacturing Co. and another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others. The respondents are directed, by a writ of mandamus, not to realize transit fee on the finished produce of the petitioner. Costs easy. All pending applications stand disposed of. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 4 5 6 7