IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2011 / 27TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26831 of 2011(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.A. SALIM AGED 48, S/O.ALIKUNJU, KANJIRATHINGAL HOUSE, FRIENDSHIP LANE, ALUVA. BY ADVS. SRI.S.VIDYASAGAR, SMT.D.MINI RAJAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAURAM-695 001. 2. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, FOREST DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 001. 4. FORESTER, FOREST CHECK POST, VALAYAR-678 001. R1 TO R4 BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JAMES KURIAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.26831/2011-D: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR PAYMENT OF GRAZING FEE FOR VEHICLE NO.KL.17B 3520. EXT.P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.5.2001 BEARING NO.42006/2001 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 26831 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 19th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P2 and seek a direction for prohibiting the respondents from levying any grazing fee for the cattle being transported in motor vehicles through check post of Valayar from Tamilnadu or other states. 2. Petitioner is in the business of cattle trade by purchasing cattle from outside the state and transport the same in motor vehicles to the State in Kerala. This writ petition has been filed on the premise that grazing fee is being levied on the cattles so brought into the State and that the same has been revised by Ext.P2 order. 3. However, in my view, the contention is misconceived. The levy complained of by the petitioner is not grazing fee as understood by the petitioner and on the other hand, it is the fee for transit of animals from one State to another through border check post. Such fee is levied on the strength of Rule 13 of the Kerala Forest (Grazing) Rules, 1985, which reads as under:- “Transit of animals from one State to other through border check post- Permits appended to these rules as WPC No.26831/11 :2 : Annexure II are to be obtained for cattle and elephants which pass through the forest areas when taken from one State to the other through border check posts. Such permits shall be issued by the Officer in charge of the check post. No permit shall be issued in respect of cattle, which are not vaccinated and those which are certified as diseased. Following rate of fee shall be levied for animals for transit through forest areas. Buffalo Re.1/- Bulls and Cows Re.0.50. Sheep Re.0.25. Elephants Rs.5/- The above rates are subject to revision by Government from time to time by notification in Gazette. 4. From the statement filed by the learned Government Pleader, it is seen that though they dispute the genuineness of Ext.P2 produced by the petitioner, still they say the fee mentioned in the Rule have been revised w.e.f. 1/6/2001. It has been so stated in para 6 of the statement, which is extracted below for reference:- “6. The rates have been subsequently revised. As per the revised rates with effect from 1.6.2001, the charges are; Buffalo Rs.15/- Bulls and cows Rs.10/- and sheep/goat Rs.5/-. That rates are being collected now. Ext.P2 is a fabricated one and hence denied.” 5. Therefore, what is levied on the petitioner is not grazing fee, but transit fee on the strength of Rule 13. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Lakshman v. State of M.P. (AIR 1983 SC 656) to contend that grazing fee is WPC No.26831/11 :3 : what is levied. First of all, in view of the reasoning as above, the contention itself has no merit. That apart, on a reading of the judgment relied on by the counsel, what is noticed is that the issue that was relied on by the Apex Court was the legality of higher fee levied on the cattle that was brought from outside into the State of Madhya Pradesh. The issue dealt with by the Apex Court is totally different from what arises in the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp