WP(C) 5890/2005 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The petitioner who deals in bamboo is before this Court being aggrieved by the d ecision of the concerned authority of the Forest Department of the State of Assa m denying transportation of Non-Timber Forest Produce (Meghalaya Forest Produce) from Meghalaya on the strength of transit passes issued by the Garo Hills Distr ict Council (hereafter referred to as the Council). Before the impugned decisio n, he used to receive the bamboo purchased by him from the mahaldar in question and transport the same to the State of Assam on the basis of such transit passes issued by the Council. The Forest Department of the State of Assam in lieu of s uch transit passes used to issue passes at the Inter-State Border to facilitate the circulation and sale of the commodity inside the State. His business having been hampered by such interdiction, he approached this Court. The State of Assam in its affidavit through the Divisional Forest Officer, Goalp ara Division has sought to contend that this embargo was warranted in view of th e notification No. FOR.58/90/71 dated 01.08.1994 of the State of Meghalaya, requ iring all trucks carrying forest produce including bamboo to be imposed with a l evy of Rs.200 per truck for issuing transit passes. According to the answering r espondent, therefore, issuance of a transit pass by the Forest Department of the State of Meghalaya on the payment of the levy as prescribed, was a condition pr ecedent to permit, inter alia, any consignment of bamboo to be transported insid e the State of Assam. Whereas, Mr. Bhuyan has urged that the notification dated 01.08.1994 of the Stat e of Meghalaya, per se, does not encompass the bamboo purchasable from a mahalda r and endorsed by the Council by its transit passes, Mr. Rahman, has urged that having regard to the comprehensive nature of the prescription, this plea is unte nable. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the p leaded facts and the other materials on record, this Court considers it appropri ate to abstain from any determination on merits, in absence of any challenge to the notification dated 01.08.194. The materials on record are inadequate as well to return a finding on this issue. Suffice it to mention that in view of the ri val pleadings as well as the notification dated 01.08.194 and the letter No. CR/ 66/GDC/328-30 of the Range Forest Officer, Central Range, Krishnai refusing entr y of NTFP (MFP) from Meghalaya to Assam, unless covered by a transit pass issued by the concerned authority of the State of Meghalaya, it is considered appropri ate to close this proceeding by leaving the petitioner at liberty, if so advised , to approach the appropriate forum for necessary relief(s). Ordered accordingly . No costs.