IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ petition No. 953 of 2008 (M/S) M/s Vinod Stone Products a sole proprietor firm Village Bakulia, Village Panchayat Kishanpur Sakulia, P.O. Mota Haldu, Tehsil Lalkuan, District Nainital through its Proprietor Vinod Kumar Joshi. …… Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand through its Secretary (Forest) Dehradun and two others. …. Resondents. Sri Anil Kumar Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State-respondents. Date June 24, 2008. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Sri Anil Kmuar Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents-State. This writ petition has been filed for issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to realize transit fee from the petitioner while lifting and transporting the finished product of minor mineral for transporting the same to various places. Prayer for mandamus commanding the respondents to give benefit of Government Order dated 16-9-2004 to the petitioner has also been made. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is proprietorship firm and is running a natural screening plant of minor mineral and the firm is collecting minor mineral from the riverbed of Gola river and after screening the same, it is converted into commercial commodity namely stone grit and chips and stone dust. The petitioner firm after screening the minor mineral sells the items to its purchaser at different places of Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner purchases stones, stone boulders and RBM from various lessees of the riverbed of Gola river and carries the same to his premises. The lessee uses to issue transit pass in Form MM-11 under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (concession) Rules, 1963. While purchasing the raw material from the riverbed of Gola river and while passing through the forest area, the Forest Department is charging the transit fee on the raw material saying that the riverbed material is a forest product under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Transit of Timber and Other Forest Produce Rules 1978. Under these Rules, no transit fee is payable on stone boulders stone grits and stone chips as they are not included in the forest produce. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is paying the transit fee on raw material, but the respondents are charging the transit fee again on the finished goods of the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the facts of the present writ petition are similar to the facts of Writ Petition No. 310 of 2005 (M/B) M/s Kumaon Pea Gravel aggregate Manufacturing Co. and another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and three others and the controversy involved in the present writ petition stands resolved by the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 30-03-2005 passed in said petition, wherein it has been held that transit fee cannot be realized twice on the same material under Uttar Pradesh Transit of Timber and Forest Produce Rules, 1978. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that this writ petition may be allowed in terms of the judgment dated 30-3-2005 passed in the aforesaid writ petition. 2 Leaned counsel for the State has fairly conceded the above fact. I have perused the Division Bench of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 310 of 2005 (M/B). The facts of the present writ petition are almost identical to the facts of the Writ Petition No. 310 of 2005(M/B). In my view this writ petition deserves to be allowed in terms of the Division Bench Judgment dated 30-3- 2005. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of 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 three others. The respondents are directed, by a writ of mandamus, not to realize transit fee on the finished goods of the petitioner. Costs easy. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP 3