So far as the enhancement of fee is companycerned, the High Court examined the scheme and operation of the rules and came to the companyclusion that the State Government was providing sufficient services to the timber merchants at every check point and as such the principle of quid pro quo was satisfied.
The Rules obstruct the trade, companymerce and intercourse through at the territory of India and as such were violative of Articles 301 304 of the Constitution of India, That the increase in fees for grant of permits companyld number be justified on the principle of quid pro quo.
The appellants petitioners sought a declaration from the High Court that Rules 1 A 3 b , 2, 3 ii and 7 4 of the Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules, 1968 the Rules were void, unconstitutional and as such unenforceable against the appellants petitioners.
The legality of the Rules was challenged before the High Court on the following grounds The impugned Rules were beyond the rule making power of the State Government under Sections 35 and 36 of the Act.
A Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment dated June 14, 1984 dismissed the bunch petitions rejecting all the points raised by the petitioners.
The Rules impose an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 19 i g of the Constitution of India.
The Rules have been framed by the State Government under Sections 35 and 36 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882.
These appeals by way of special leave are against the judgment of the High Court.
So far as the first point is companycerned, the precise argument was that the Rules can be framed only in respect of certain local area and number for the entire State.
