LexSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus M/S. SITAPUR PACKING WOOD SUPPLIERS ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. A v. MIS. SITAPUR PACKING WOOD SUPPLIERS ETC. APRIL 23, 2002 [Y.K. SABHARWAL AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] B "' U.P. Transit of Timber and Other Forest Produce Rules, 1978-Rule 5- • Transit fee on forest produce-Levy of-Validity- in the instant case, High Court holding transit fee invalid in absence of quid pro quo-On appeal held, c transit fee being regulatory and not compensatory, it is not necessary to establish factum of rendering of service-Thus cannot be invalidated on the ground that quid pro quo has not been established-Indian Forest Act, 1927. Writ Petitions were filed before the High Court challenging the validity of levy of transit fee on the forest produce under Rule 5 of U.P. Transit of D Timber and Other Forest Produce Rules, 1978. High Court held the Rule to ).. be constitutionally valid but invalidated the levy of transit fee in absence of ,.. quid pro quo. Hence the present appeals. ~ Allowing the appeals, the Court E _HELD : It is clear from the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and U.P. Transit of Timber and Other Forest Produce Rules, 1978 that the transitory fee is regtllatory in nature. The question of quid pro quo is necessary when a fee is compensatory. It is well established that for every fee quid pro quo is not necessary. The transit fee being regulatory, it is not necessary to F ~ ~ establish the factum of rendering of service. Thus, there is no question of a levy of transit fee being invalidated on the ground that quid pro quo has not been established and was not necessary for the State to establish quid pro quo. [350-F; 351-C] State of Tripura and Ors. v. Sudhir Ranjah Nath, [1997[ 3 SCC 665; G Corporation of <;alcutta and Anr. v. Liberty Cinema, [1965] 2 SCR 477; Secunde.-abad Hyderabad Hotel Owners' Association and Ors. v. Hyderabad ~).. Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and Anr., [1999] 2 SCC 274 and P. Kannadasan and Ors. v. State o[T.N and Ors., [1996[ 5 SCC 670, referred to. 345 H A 346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ; Civil Appeal Nos. 3974- 4051 of 1986. From the Judgment and Order dated 16.5.1986 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. Nos. 901/84, 6168/83, 1411, 1585, 1602, 2027, 2369, 2398, 2419, 2492, 2538, 2647, 2655, 2665, 3369, 3776, 4169, 4357, 4459, 4535, 13 4627, 4628, 4629, 4633, 4820, 4941, 4942, 4974, 5006, 5007, 5021, 5151, 5307,5309, 5345, 5381, 5382, 5384, 5437, 5459, 5527, 5601, 5720, 5773, 5833, 5921, 6068/84, 133, 341, 356, 637, 785, 850, 1190, 1257, 1709, 1860, 1920, 1991, 2144, 2267, 2681, 3924, 3927, 4013, 4192, 5721, 6659/85, 49, 142, 159, 205, 370, 371, 372, 374, 1013, and 2208 of 1986. c WITH C.A. Nos. 2891, 2876, 2877-2886, 2887, 2888, 2889, 2890, 2874 of 2002, 36/45/95, 5376/98 and 2699 of 1999. Dinesh Dwivedi, R.C. Verma, (NP), Ajay K. Agrawal, lrshad Ahmad D (NP), G.G. Upadhyay for R.D. Upadhyay, Manoj Swarup, Ms. Lalita Kohli, A.P. Mohanty (NP), Shakil Ahmed Syed (NP), Anis Ahmed Khan (NP) for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E Y.K. SABHARWAL, J. Delay condoned. Special leave granted. The only question that is required to be determined in these appeals is about the validity of the levy of transit fee under Rule 5 of U.P. Transit F of Timber and Other Forest Produce Rules, 1978 (for short 'the Rules'). The High Court has held the Ruleto be constitutionally valid but levy of transit fee has been invalidated in absence of quid pro quo. The Rule has not been struck down as in the view of the High Court it is open to the State Government to support the levy of transit fee by rendering service as quid pro quo. This G aspect alone is under challenge in these appeals filed by the State Government aggrieved by the conclusion of the High Court that the levy of transit fee is invalid. The Rules have been framed in exercise of the powers under Sections .. Al, 42, 51 and 76 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Rule 3 provides for regulation H of transit of forest produce by means of passes. It places restrictions on .... • - I , ,., I ).. STATE v. S!TAPUR PACKING WOOD SUPPLIERS [Y.K. SABHARWAL, !.] 347 movement of forest produce without transit pass into or from or within the A State of U.P. The imposition of fee is provided in Rule 5. Rule 14 provides for affixing of transit marks to timber. Rules 3, 5 and 14 read as under: "3. Regulation of transit of forest produce by means of passes
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.