STATE OF MANIPUR REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER Vs. A.K CYCLES AND ALLIED CENTRE
LAWS(MANIP)-2019-10-23
HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Decided on October 17,2019

State Of Manipur Represented By The Commissioner Appellant
VERSUS
A.K Cycles And Allied Centre Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.V.MURALIDARAN,J. - (1.) Heard Mr.H.Debendra, learned Government Advocate for the review petitioners/State and Mr. Ng.Somorjit, learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners.
(2.) The two respondents/writ petitioners are engaged in export and import based on agreement between the Union India and Myanmar under valid import licence. They were importing betel nuts through Indo-Myanmar border. The review petitioner, State of Manipur, through the Forest Department levied fees @ 7% as Transit Pass Fee for transportation of betel nuts across the border. That was challenged by the respondents/writ petitioners by filing W.P(C) No. 909 of 1999 stating that the Forest Department had no authority to levy the transit pass fee. The writ petition was disposed of on 23.6.2000 by the learned Single Judge directing the respondents/writ petitioners to approach the State Government for refund of the amount deposited. Aggrieved by that, the writ petitioners/traders filed writ appeal being WA No.94 of 2000 which was allowed on 6.02.2007 directing the State Government to refund the transport pass fees so collected in 4(four) equal instalments on or before 31st July, 2007. In the same manner, the State of Manipur and three others filed writ appeal being WA No. 90 of 2000 against the order dated 23.6.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(C) No.909 of 1999. That appeal was disposed of as not pressed by the following order and is extracted as below:- "BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JN SARMA THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.LAMARE For the Appellants : GA For the Respondents : NEMO Date of Order : 29.8.2001 "ORDER Learned Advocate for the appellant does not want to press writ appeal. Accordingly, this appeal shall stand disposed of as not pressed. Stay order if any passed earlier shall stand vacated." Review Petn.No.3 of 2008Page 2
(3.) Against the disposal of the appeal as not pressed, the present Review Petition No.3 of 2008 along with the application for condonation of 2141 days being M.C. (Review) No. 12 of 2007 was filed. The condone delay application was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- in the order dated 14.02.2008. It transpires that the respondents/writ petitioners filed appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court against this condoned delay order passed in condoned delay application, No. M.C. (Review) No. 12 of 2007. The SLP No.16324/2008 against the order passed in MC No.12 of 2007 was dismissed on 01.5.2014 and the same is extracted in para No.9 of this judgment. Therefore, the review petition is pending after condonation of delay. We have taken the review petition and heard the counsel for State petitioner and for respondents.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.