STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. SITAPUR PACKING WOOD SUPPLIERS
LAWS(SC)-2002-4-51
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on
April 23,2002
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Appellant
VERSUS
SITAPUR PACKING WOOD SUPPLIERS
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA VS. LIBERTY CINEMA [REFERRED]P KANNADASAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED]
STATE OF TRIPURA VS. SUDHIR RANJAN NATH [REFERRED]
SECUNDERABAD HYDERABAD HOTEL OWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION HYDERABAD [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
CHHATARPUR CRASHER ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-8-167] [REFERRED TO]ASSAM NORTH BENGAL ROADWAYS VS. STATE OF U.P. AND 11 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-11-47] [REFERRED TO]
SAI STONE CRUSHER BIJNORE VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2008-4-89] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL ADVERTISING COMPANY (M/S.) VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-3-171] [REFERRED TO]
SONEBHADRA MINOR MINERAL LEASE PERMIT HOLDERS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2002-7-115] [REFERRED TO]
O/E/N CONNECTORS LTD VS. CHOTTANIKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT [LAWS(KER)-2007-8-112] [REFERRED TO]
VIDARBHA CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VS. COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF AKOLA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-7-61] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL ADVERTIISING CO VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
SELVEL ADVERTISING PRIVATE LTD VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2012-12-12] [REFERRED TO]
GALFAR ENGINEER & CONTRACTING VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2014-4-18] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND VS. KUMAON STONE CRUSHER [LAWS(SC)-2017-9-108] [REFERRED TO]
KUMAR STONE WORKS PARTNER INDER SINGH RAM PRASAD SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2005-4-118] [REFERRED TO]
NTPC LIMITED VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2011-11-184] [REFERRED TO]
T RAMESH BABU VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2005-9-15] [REFERRED TO]
T RAMESH BABU VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2005-3-86] [REFERRED]
SHRI DIGAMBER DATT & ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [LAWS(MEGH)-2017-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
SERAM STALON SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2019-4-10] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. BAIDYANATH AYURVED BHAWAN P LTD [LAWS(SC)-2005-1-30] [RELIED ON]
OM PARKASH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2020-7-39] [REFERRED TO]
GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES VS. STATE OF U P AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2013-12-244] [REFERRED]
SANGAM EENT NIRMATA SAMITI VS. ZILA PANCHAYAT [LAWS(ALL)-2005-9-51] [REFERRED TO]
SONEBHADRA MINOR MINERAL LEASE/PERMIT HOLDERS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2002-7-175] [REFERRED]
KUMAUN STONE CRUSHER ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2015-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Delay condoned.
(2.)Special leave granted.
(3.)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 of Timber and Other Forest Produce Rules, 1978 (for short the Rules). The High Court has held the Rule to 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 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.
(2.)Special leave granted.
(3.)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 of Timber and Other Forest Produce Rules, 1978 (for short the Rules). The High Court has held the Rule to 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 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.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.