THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1343 of 2010. Kumaun Stone Crusher Association and two others … Petitioners. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and four others. …Respondents. Mr. R.K.Raizada, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Brief Holder for the State-respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent no. 4. Date August 17, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief:- (A) Issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the Uttar Pradesh Transit of Timber and Forest Produce Rules, 1978 as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand so far the State Government insists under “the Rules 1978” (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) to provide transit pass and transit fee for regulation of transit of Bounder, sand and bajri and (B) Issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the State of Uttarakhand not to enforce the Uttar Pradesh Transit of Timber and Forest Produce Rules, 1978 as applicable in the State of Uttaranchal so far the State Government insists under “the Rules 1978” (Annexure-1 of the Writ Petition) to provide transit pass and transit fee for regulation of transit of Boulder, sand and bajri and (C) Issue an order or direction or writ of certiorari quashing the “Transit Pass No. 67”(Annexure-9 of the writ petition) and to order refund of the transit fee collected from 26.6.2007. (D) Issue an order or direction or appropriate writ restraining the respondents from issuing any transit pass and levying any transit fee in terms of Rules 1978 (Annexure-1 of the writ petition) 2 framed under Section 41 of Forest Act 1947 in case of transit of Boulder, Sand and Bajri (RBM) which are purchased on payment of royalty in accordance with the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act 1957 and rules framed there-under by the State Government. (E) Issue an interim order or direction restraining the respondents from issuing any transit pass and levying any transit fee in terms of Rules 1978 (Annexure-1 of the writ petition) framed under section 41 of Forest Act 1947 in case of transit of Boulder, Sand and Bajri (RBM) which are purchased on payment of royalty in accordance with the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act 1957 and rules framed there-under by the State Government. (F) Issue an order or direction or writ as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The grievance of the petitioners is that the State Government of Uttarakhand cannot force the petitioners to obtain transit pass and to pay transit fee in terms of Rules 1978 as applicable to the State of Uttaranchal on boulder, sand and Bajri, which the members of the petitioner no. 1 use to purchase from Uttaranchal Forest Corporation and process the same in their respective stone crushers or stone screening plants. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment dated 26-6-2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 993 of 2004(M/B) M/s Gupta Builders Vs. State of Uttaranchal and five others and that this writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the said order. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Brief Holder appearing for the State of Uttarakhand has fairly conceded the above fact. I have perused the order dated 26-6-2007 passed by the Division Bench of this Court and I find that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition stands resolved by the order dated 26-6- 2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 993 of 2004(M/B) M/s 3 Gupta Builders Vs. State of Uttaranchal and five others. This Court in paragraph 22 has observed as under:- “22. In pith and substance both the Acts operate in two different fields. Therefore, the sale made under the MMRD Act and Rules thereunder by the State Government is in transit and minor minerals on the basis of aforesaid sale cannot be to be a sale under the Forest Act and Rules framed thereunder. Therefore, the transit fees which have been framed under the Forest Act by the State of U.P. and State of Uttaranchal cannot be made applicable on the transit of minor and minerals under the MMRD Act. Thus, either the State of U.P. or the State of Uttaranchal is not entitled to levy and collect transit fee on the transit of such minor and minerals as a result of sale under the U.P./Uttaranchal Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Levy and collection of transit fee is held to be illegal.” The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 26-6-2007 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 993 of 2004(M/B) M/s Gupta Builders Vs. State of Uttaranchal and five others. No order as to costs. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP