Judgment :- W.P.No.5384 of 1992 and W.P.No.7042 of 1992: These two writ petitions have been filed respectively by Coimbatore District Charcoal Merchants Association and Tiruchy District Charcoal Merchants Association against the State of Tamil Nadu and the lower forest officials as respondents, thereby praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the G.O.Ms.No.721, Environment and Forests (FR XIII) Department, dated 112. 1991 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same. 2. W.P.Nos.14944 of 1992 to 14947 of 1992: These four writ petitions have been filed by individual firms or Corporation praying to issue a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents particularly the third and fourth respondents from collecting any amount more than Rs.5 as service charge per lorry load for issuing the ‘certificate of origin’ for the movement of charcoal from Tamil Nadu to states other than the State of Kerala in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.721, Environment and Forests (FR XIII) Department, dated 112. 1991. 3. W.P.Nos.13398 of 1992 and 15576 of 1992: These two writ petitions have been filed by partnership firms praying to issue a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents therein from collecting a sum of Rs.100 per lorry load of charcoal for issuing the ‘certificate of origin’ for the movement of charcoal from Tamil Nadu to the States of Maharashtra and Gujarat in pursuance of the G.O.Ms.No.721, Environment and Forests (FR XIII) Department, dated 112. 1991. 4. W.P.No.17796 of 1992: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Private Limited Company praying to issue a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents therein from collecting a sum of Rs.100 per lorry load for issuing the ‘certificate of origin’ for the movement of charcoal from Tamil Nadu to the States of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh in pursuance of the G.O.Ms.No.721, Environment and Forests (FR XIII) Department, dated 112. 1991. .5. All the above writ petitions have been taken up for consideration as a batch, since they are similar in nature and to an extent aimed at common objects for either quashing the G.O.Ms.No.721, Environment and Forests (FR XIII) Department, dated 112. 1991. .5. All the above writ petitions have been taken up for consideration as a batch, since they are similar in nature and to an extent aimed at common objects for either quashing the G.O.Ms.No.721, Environment and Forests (FR XIII) Department, dated 112. 1991, which has been issued enhancing the fee for issuing the ‘certificate of origin’ for the movement of charcoal from the State of Tamil Nadu to the State of Kerala from Rs.5 to Rs.100 or to forbear the respondents/Forest Officials from collecting the sum of Rs.100 or anything more than Rs.5 for issuing the ‘certificate of origin’ for the movement of charcoal from the State of Tamil Nadu to States other than Kerala. Common arguments were advanced by those counsel, who were present representing the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader for Forest Cases contra, representing the respondents and on perusal of the materials placed on record, particularly the G.O.Ms.No.721, Environment and Forests (FR XIII) Department, dated 112. 1991 and in consideration of the pleadings of parties, and upon hearing the counsel for both, this Court passes the following common order: 6. At the outset it is relevant to assess the operational sphere of the petitioners in the movement of the charcoal and the issuance of the ‘certificate of origin’ on payment of the service charges. Under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, every movement of charcoal from the State of Tamil Nadu will be verified as to the genuineness of its origin by the Forest Officials and on application by the charcoal merchants, a certificate viz., the ‘certificate of origin’ will be issued in Form No.IV in accordance with the provisions of Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Rules for every financial year ending with 31st March. The Government of Tamil Nadu by Letter No.7075/FR-13/86-3, Forests and Fisheries Department, dated 4. 1986, issued an order for charging a nominal fee of Rs.5 as service charge towards the issuance of the ‘certificate of origin’ for the movement of one lorry load of charcoal from the State of Tamil Nadu to the State of Kerala. But, however, this nominal service charge of Rs.5 is being collected by the respondents for every lorry load, which leaves the State of Tamil Nadu to neighbouring States even for far away States. But, however, this nominal service charge of Rs.5 is being collected by the respondents for every lorry load, which leaves the State of Tamil Nadu to neighbouring States even for far away States. This levy of nominal charge for issuing the ‘certificate of origin’ was intended only to check and keep under control any illicit transportation or goods other than charcoal. 7. While such being the state of affairs, the first respondent in all the above writ petitions, by G.O.Ms.No.721, Environment and Forests (FR XIII) Department, dated 112. 1991 enhanced the rate of service charge for issuing the ‘certificate of origin’ from Rs.5 to Rs.100 per lorry load of charcoal for its movement from Tamil Nadu to the State of Kerala alone on reason of escalation of prices. .8. The grievance of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.5384 of 1992 and 7042 of 1992 is that the increased rate of service charge from Rs.5 to Rs.100 i.e., the enhancement of the fee twenty times within the period of six years on ground of escalation of prices is totally unjustifiable and unwarranted and such levy is arbitrary and not authorised by law legislated by either the State legislative body or the Parliament and the direction dated 12. 1992 and 12. 1992 to collect the enhanced fee Rs.100 retrospectively from 112. 1991 is again clearly illegal and without jurisdiction and therefore these petitioners would pray the court to call for the records relating to the G.O.Ms.No.721, Environment and Forests (FR XIII) Department, dated 112. 1991 from the file of the first respondent and quash the same and pass such other or further orders. 9. Based on the same facts and circumstances, the writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.13398 of 1992, 14944 of 1992 to 14947 of 1992, 15576 of 1992 and 17796 of 1992 would pray not to quash the said G.O.Ms.No.721, dated 112. 1991. but to forbear the respondents from collecting the sum of Rs.100 for issuing the ‘certificate of origin’ for the movement of Charcoal from the State of Tamil Nadu to the States other than Kerala. 1991. but to forbear the respondents from collecting the sum of Rs.100 for issuing the ‘certificate of origin’ for the movement of Charcoal from the State of Tamil Nadu to the States other than Kerala. The contention of these petitioners is that though the service charge is increased from Rs.5 to Rs.100 for issuing the ‘certificate of origin’ for the movement of charcoal from the State of Tamil Nadu to the State of Kerala only, the respondents are compelling to pay Rs.100 for every lorry load for issuing the ‘certificate of origin’ for movement of the charcoal to States other than Kerala like Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh etc. So far as these petitioners are concerned they are concerned, they are not bothered about the G.O.Ms.No.721, Environment and Forests (FR XIII) Department, dated 112. 1991 insisting to pay the enhanced fee of Rs.100 for issuing the ‘certificate of origin’ for the movement of charcoal of one lorry load from the State of Tamil Nadu to the State of Kerala, but their grievance is that the respondents are insisting them to pay the enhanced sum of Rs.100 for issuing the certificate of origin’ for one lorry load of charcoal to move from Tamil Nadu to the States other than Kerala, even though it is not covered under the said G.O. Hence, they come forward to file these writ petitions praying to issue a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from collecting any amount more than Rs.5 as service charges per lorry load for issuing the ‘certificate of origin’ for the movement of charcoal from the State of Tamil Nadu to States other than Kerala in strict adherence of the G.O.Ms.No.721, Environment and Forests (FR XIII) Department, dated 112. 1991. .10. In the counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent in W.P.No.7042 of 1992 i.e., the District Forest Officer, Tiruchi, it would be contended that since the Kerala State Produce Transit Rules insisted permit for transport of charcoal into the State of Kerala, they demanded a ‘certificate of origin’ from the Tamil Nadu Forest Department as a result of which, the Government formulated a procedure to issue the ‘certificate of origin’. collecting a nominal fee of Rs.5 per lorry load, as per G.O.Ms.No.6, Forests and Fisheries (FR XIII) Department, dated 1. 1986. collecting a nominal fee of Rs.5 per lorry load, as per G.O.Ms.No.6, Forests and Fisheries (FR XIII) Department, dated 1. 1986. It would be further contended that in order to mobilise additional source to the Government, to meet the financial stress, the Government ordered enhancement of fee from Rs.5 to Rs.100 as per G.O.Ms.No.721, Environment and Forests (FR XIII) Department, dated 112. 1991 and such of the enhancement cannot be questioned by the petitioners since it is a policy decision of the Government taken in the interest of the general public. Regarding the other contentions of the petitioners that the respondents are insisting the same payment of Rs.100 relating to issuing of ‘certificate of origin’ for the movement of charcoal from the State of Tamil Nadu to States other than Kerala, it would be stoutly denied and ultimately would pray for dismissal of the writ petitions. 11. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would insist what they have pleaded in the petitions. They would term the enhancement of fee from Rs.5 to Rs.100 as arbitrary and high-handed. It would be further argued that there is no such escalation of prices of the commodities within six years so as to enhance the fee from Rs.5 to Rs.100. The learned counsel for the petitioners would deprecate the manner in which the respondents are insisting and instituting unreasonable restrictions thereby infringing Art.19(g) of the Constitution of India further in giving retrospective effect to the collection of the amount and it is also a further infringement of Art.14 of the Constitution, which is arbitrary, unlawful and unconscionable; that there is absolutely no correspondent or correlation of duty for collecting the fee in the said manner. The learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.5384 of 1992 and 7042 of 1992 would also produce the copy of the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.3505 of dated 27. 199 thereby quashing the G.O.Ms.No.721, Environment and Forests (FR III) Department, dated 112. 1991. .12. The learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.5384 of 1992 and 7042 of 1992 would also produce the copy of the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.3505 of dated 27. 199 thereby quashing the G.O.Ms.No.721, Environment and Forests (FR III) Department, dated 112. 1991. .12. In reply, the learned Special Government Pleader for Forest Cases would contend that charcoal is not a forest produce so as to attract the Forest Act, 1882, but it is the petitioners, who approached the Government to issue the ‘certificate of origin’ since it had been demanded by the Forest Officials of the Kerala State and hence at their behest, G.O.Ms.No.6, Forests and Fisheries (FR XIII) Department, dated 1. 1986 had been passed by the Government. Citing para No.3 of the G.O.Ms.No.721, Environment and Forests (FR XIII) Department, dated 112. 1991 the learned Special Government Pleader for Forest Cases would justify the reason given on the part of the Government for enhancing the fee from Rs.5 to Rs.100 on account of escalation in prices. It would further be contended that the cause of action will arise only at Kerala because it is they, who issue the licence to transport charcoal from Tamil Nadu. 13. Since it is G.O.Ms.No.721, Environment and Forests (FR XIII) Department, dated 112. 1991, which is the focul point of all these writ petitions, it is relevant to extract the said G.O., which runs as follows: “G.O.Ms.No.721. Dated: 112. 1991. Read: 1. G.O.Ms.No.6, Forests and Fisheries Department, dated 31. 1986. 2. Govt. Lr.7075/Fr-13/86-3, Forests and Fisheries Department, dated 4. 1986. ORDER: In the Government Orders first read above, orders have been issued that on receipt of specific applications from individual charcoal merchants of Tamil Nadu, the District Forest Officer or any officer authorised by him may issue a ‘certificate of origin’ in the prescribed form for the movement of charcoal from Tamil Nadu after verifying the genuineness of its origin. In Government letter 2nd read above, orders have been issued to charge a nominal fee of Rs.5 (Rupees five only) as service charge towards the issue of ‘certificate of origin’ for movement of one lorry load of charcoal from Tamil Nadu to Kerala. 3. In Government letter 2nd read above, orders have been issued to charge a nominal fee of Rs.5 (Rupees five only) as service charge towards the issue of ‘certificate of origin’ for movement of one lorry load of charcoal from Tamil Nadu to Kerala. 3. In view of the present escalation of prices, the Government direct that the existing fee Rs.5 (Rupees five only) be enhanced to Rs.100 (Rupees one hundred only) per one lorry load for the issue of certificate of origin for the movement of Charcoal from Tamil Nadu to Kerala State. 4. This order issues with the concurrence of Finance Department vide its U.O.No.132180/F&Cs/91-1, dated 112. 1991.” 14. Assessing the facts and circumstances as pleaded and argued by both sides and in the light of the order passed by a single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.3505 of 1992, the only reason assigned by the Government for enhancing the fee from Rs.5 to Rs.100 is escalation in prices. No other valid or tangible reason has been assigned by the Government the first respondent or any other respondents for the enhancement of the charge 20 times. Since escalation in prices is the only reason assigned on the part of the respondents for enhancing the fee, it is neither legal nor reasonable on the part of the first respondent to have fixed the fee twenty times of that which had already been collected. Since it has already been held by this Court quashing the said G.O., concurring with the same, I hold that the said G.O. deserves to be quashed and so far as W.P.Nos.5384 of 1992 and 7042 of 1992 are concerned, they are allowed quashing the G.O.Ms.No.721, Environment and Forests (FR XIII) Department, dated 112. 1991. 15. So far as the W.P.Nos.13398 of 1992, 14944 of 1992 to 14947 of 1992, 15576 of 1992 and 17796 of 1992 are concerned, the prayer of the petitioners therein is different from that of the W.P.Nos.5384 of 1992 and 7042 of 1992. The grievances of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.13398 of 1992, 14944 of 1992 to 14947 of 1992, 15576 of 1992 and 17796 of 1992 is that since G.O.Ms.No.721, Environment and Forests (FR XIII) Department, dated 112. The grievances of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.13398 of 1992, 14944 of 1992 to 14947 of 1992, 15576 of 1992 and 17796 of 1992 is that since G.O.Ms.No.721, Environment and Forests (FR XIII) Department, dated 112. 1991 is concerned only with issuing the ‘certificate of origin’ for the movement of charcoal from Tamil Nadu to Kerala, for the issuance of the ‘certificate of origin’ for movement of charcoal from Tamil Nadu to states other than Kerala, the respondents are not entitled to insist payment of Rs.100 per lorry load of charcoal and it should be the nominal fee that used to be collected as Rs.5 as per G.O.Ms.No.6, Forests and Fisheries (FR XIII) Department, dated 1. 1986. Since on the part of the respondents, no information is made available regarding any other G.O., Rule or Regulation insisting such payment for States other than Kerala, the respondents have no right to collect the enhanced amount of Rs.100 per lorry load as the fee for the issuance of the ‘certificate of origin’ since the G.O.Ms.No.721, Environment and Forests (FR XIII) Department, dated 112. 1991 is meant for movement of charcoal from the State of Tamil Nadu to the State of Kerala as specified in paras Nos.2 and 3 of the G.O. Hence, under pretext of this G.O., the authorities should not have collected any excess amount from the petitioners for the issuance of ‘certificate of origin’ for the movement of charcoal from the State of Tamil Nadu to the States other than Kerala. Even though collections, if any effected so far regarding the enhanced fee, as it is pleaded on the part of the petitioners, it has been done in an illegal manner, absolutely bereft of any force of law or authority. It is still worse to have issued notice to pay the differential service charge of Rs.95 per lorry load already transported, after the G.O.Ms.No.721 came into force. In this regard, the petitioners are definitely entitled to get reimbursement of the differential service charges of Rs.95 per lorry load, if the same was collected by the respondents, till the date of filing of the writ petitions. 16. In this regard, the petitioners are definitely entitled to get reimbursement of the differential service charges of Rs.95 per lorry load, if the same was collected by the respondents, till the date of filing of the writ petitions. 16. In the above circumstances, this Court is left with no option but to concede the prayer of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.13398 of 1992, 14944 of 1992 to 14947 of 1992, 15576 of 1992 and 17796 of 1992 and the respondents therein are hereby restrained from collecting any amount other than Rs.5 as service charge per lorry load for issuing the ‘certificate of origin’ for movement of the charcoal from the State of Tamil Nadu to the States other than Kerala. 17. In result, W.P.Nos.5384 of 1992 and 7042 of 1992 are allowed quashing the G.O.Ms.No.721, Environment and Forests (FR XIII) Department, dated 112. 1991. 18. The Writ Petition Nos.13398 of 1992, 14944 of 1992 to 14947 of 1992, 15576 of 1992 and 17796 of 1992 succeed and they are allowed in terms indicated in para Nos.15 and 16 supra. 19. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.7692 of 1992, 7693 of 1992, 18944 of 1992, 21271 of 1992 to 21275 of 1992, 22194 of 1992, 25478 of 1992 and 1418 of 1993 are closed. 20. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.