IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1056 of 2008 (M/S) Mohan Pal son of Late Sri Brij Lal, Proprietor of M/s Akarati Natural Products Bametha Bangar Halduchaur, Tehsil Lalkuan, District Nainital. …… Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand through secretary, Department of Forest, Dehradun and three others. … Respondents. Sri Bhupendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State-respondents. Date June 30, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard Sri Bhupendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents. Learned counsel for both the parties have submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of finally today itself at admission stage without inviting counter affidavit from the respondents. This writ petition has been filed for issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not a realize transit fee on the finished products of the petitioner namely stone grits, stone chips and sand, which are produced in the Stone Screening Plant of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has installed machinery and screening plant in which the minor-minerals known as river bad material (R.B.M.) are screened and by vibration of machines stone grids of different sized, stone dust, sand are produced. The unit of the petitioner is duly registered with the District Industry Centre and the permission had been granted by the District Magistrate Nainital to run the said unit. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 2 vide its order dated 14-6-1999 directed the respondent no. 3 to charge the transit fee from the owners of the stone crushers on the transit of finished products. The respondent no. 3 in view of the order passed by respondent no.2 had issued an order dated 21.6.1999 whereby he had directed to make recovery of the transit fee from the petitioner. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has allowed the Writ Petition No. 1124 of 2001 (M/B), M/s Kumaun Stone Crusher Vs. State of U.P. and others, vide order dated 1-7-2004 wherein it was held that “since the stone grits and chips are manufactured by the petitioner, who sells it to the consumers, it becomes a commercial commodity and it ceases to be forest produce. Therefore, no transit fee can be charged and recovered on the sale and transfer of these items as forest produce.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the facts of the case at hand are similar to that of the aforesaid writ petition and the controversy involved in the present writ petition stands resolved by the judgment dated 1-7-2004, therefore, this writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the said order. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State has fairly conceded to the above fact. The writ petition is allowed in terms of the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 01-07-2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 1124 of 2001 (M/B), M/s Kumaun Stone Crusher Vs. State of U.P. and others. Accordingly, the respondents are directed by a writ of mandamus , not to realize transit fee on the finished products of the petitioner, e.g. stone grits, stone chips and sand, which are produced in the Stone Screening Plant. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP