Registration fee for coal movement lacked statutory authority, but transit passes and transit fee still applied under forest produce rules.

In the absence of express statutory authority, compulsory registration of dealers moving coal within Uttar Pradesh and levy of a registration fee were held to be beyond the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Rules, which were confined to property marks, timber, and foreign passes. The demand for registration and the related fee was therefore invalid. However, the separate transit regime for forest produce continued to apply: coal movement within the State remained subject to transit passes and the transit fee under the U.P. Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978. The writ petitions succeeded only to the extent of removing the registration requirement and fee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondents could insist on registration and charge registration fee for movement of coal within the State of Uttar Pradesh. (ii) Whether the petitioners were still required to obtain transit passes and pay transit fee for movement of coal treated as forest produce.

Issue (i): Whether the respondents could insist on registration and charge registration fee for movement of coal within the State of Uttar Pradesh.

Analysis: The registration power under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was held to extend only to property marks for timber and related forest produce, and the rules framed under the Act provided for registration of foreign passes and marks, not of dealers importing coal into the State. The reference to section 40A was treated as erroneous, and no provision was found authorising compulsory registration of a dealer engaged in intra-State movement of coal. The insistence on registration and levy of registration fee was therefore beyond the authority conferred by the Act and the Rules.

Conclusion: The demand for registration and registration fee was invalid and not sustainable against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners were still required to obtain transit passes and pay transit fee for movement of coal treated as forest produce.

Analysis: While registration of dealers was not authorised, the regime governing transit of forest produce continued to apply. The movement of coal within the State remained subject to the transit pass mechanism and the associated transit fee under the U.P. Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978, as affirmed in the earlier decision relied upon by the Court.

Conclusion: The petitioners remained liable to obtain transit passes and pay transit fee for transportation of coal.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded to the extent that the petitioners were relieved from the requirement of registration and from payment of registration fee, but the statutory transit pass and transit fee requirements continued to operate for movement of coal within the State.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of express statutory authority, a fee cannot be levied or a registration requirement imposed by subordinate legislation beyond the scope of the enabling Act, though the separate statutory mechanism governing transit of forest produce may still apply.

---