ORDER : 1. In State of U.P. and Others Versus Sitapur Packing Wood Suppliers and Others reported in (2002) 4 SCC 566 , validity of levy of transit fee under Rule 5 of the UP Transit of Timber and Other Forest Produce Rules, 1978 (For short ‘the Rules’) was in question. In the judgment under appeal therein, the High Court had held said Rule 5 to be constitutionally valid but levy of transit fee was invalidated in the absence of quid pro quo. Allowing the appeals, this Court found the transit fee under Rule 5 to be clearly regulatory and held that it was not necessary for the State to establish quid pro quo. 2. In the present matters coming from State of U.P., amendments to very same Rule 5 are in question. By third amendment, the rate was revised to Rs.38 per cubic meter capacity per lorry. By fourth amendment, the rate was further revised to Rs.200 per cubic meter capacity per lorry while the fifth amendment seeks to revise the rate to 15% ad valorem, on the value of the forest produce for transportation. 3. The High Court has held the third amendment to Rule 5 to be valid but invalidated fourth and fifth amendment. 4. In these matters, following interim directions were passed by this Court on 29.10.2013. “(1) The State shall be free to recover transit fee for forest produce removed from within the State of U.P. at the rate stipulated in the 3rd amendment to the Rules mentioned in the earlier part of this order. (2) Any such recovery shall remain subject to the ultimate outcome of present petitions pending in this Court. (3) In the event of writ petitioners/private parties succeeding in their cases, the amount deposited/recovered from them shall be refunded to them with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date the deposit was made till actual refund. (4) The State shall maintain accurate amount of recovery made and the nature and the quantum/quantity of the produce removed by the private parties concerned. (4) The State shall maintain accurate amount of recovery made and the nature and the quantum/quantity of the produce removed by the private parties concerned. (5) Even in the 2nd batch of cases arising out of Writ Petition No.975 of 2004 whereby the High Court has struck down the 4th and 5th amendment to the Rules, the State shall be free to make recoveries in terms of the 3rd amendment in regard to the forest produce removed from within the State of U.P. The operation of the orders passed by the High Court shall to that extent remain stayed. (6) This modification shall not apply to exempted goods or industrial by products like Klinker and fly ash.” 5. In matters from State of Uttranchal, namely SLP(C) No.19445 of 2004 (State of Uttaranchal & Ors. Etc. vs. Kumaon Stone Crusher etc.) and other connected matters, following directions were passed by this Court on 12.11.2013: “The operation of the impugned judgment(s) passed by the High Court shall remain stayed in these matters subject to the following conditions: (I) Recoveries, if any, made from writ petitioners-respondents herein shall be subject to the ultimate outcome of these matters. (II) In the event of the appeals, filed by the State against the impugned orders passed by the High Court, being dismissed, the amount recovered from the writ petitioners (respondents herein) towards transit fees shall be refunded to them with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date the recovery is made till the date of actual refund. (III) The rate at which the recovery may be made by the State shall be those stipulated under the notifications issued on the subject as modified by any interim or final order passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal in any pending writ petition. Pleadings, if not already completed, shall be completed within six weeks. Post these matters for hearing in the month of February, 2014 along with the connected matters arising from the State of U.P. including SLP(C) BI, 11367 of 2007, etc.” 6. These matters were thereafter heard in part on 19.2.2015 but could not be heard thereafter. On 10.2.2016, the matters were directed to be posted on 26.4.2016 for final hearing. However, considering the number of matters, there does not seem to be immediate prospect of final hearing in the matters. 7. These matters were thereafter heard in part on 19.2.2015 but could not be heard thereafter. On 10.2.2016, the matters were directed to be posted on 26.4.2016 for final hearing. However, considering the number of matters, there does not seem to be immediate prospect of final hearing in the matters. 7. We, therefore, heard learned counsel for the State as well as for private parties to consider, if interim directions passed earlier could suitably be modified keeping in mind public interest involved in the matters. 8. Rule 5 of the Rules seeks to impose transit fee on the forest produce. Forest produce as defined in Section 2(4) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 has two elements. The matters covered under sub-clause (a) of Section 2(4) are “Forest Produce” regardless whether found in, or brought from a forest or not, whereas under sub-Clause (b) those enumerated therein “when found in or brought from a forest” are stated to be forest produce. 9. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to pass following interim directions in modification of those passed earlier: (1) Insofar as forest produce as defined in sub-clause(a) of Clause(4) of Section 2 is concerned, the State shall be free to recover transit fee within the State of U.P. at the rate stipulated in the fifth amendment to Rule 5 as aforesaid; (2) Insofar as forest produce originating from State of U.P. and covered by sub-clause (b) of Clause (4) of Section 3 is concerned, the State shall be free recover transit fee at the rate stipulated in the fifth amendment to the aforesaid Rule 5. (3) Insofar as forest produce covered under sub-clause(b) of Clause(4) of Section 2, which does not originate from State of U.P. but is merely passing through the State, the State shall be free to recover transit fee in respect of such forest produce at the rate stipulated in the fourth amendment to aforesaid Rule 5. (4) Any such recovery shall remain subject to the ultimate outcome of present petitions pending in this Court. (5) In the event of writ petitioners/private parties succeeding in their cases, the amount deposited/recovered from them shall be refunded to them with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till actual refund. (6) The State shall maintain accurate amount of recovery made and the nature/quantity of the produce removed by the private party is concerned. (5) In the event of writ petitioners/private parties succeeding in their cases, the amount deposited/recovered from them shall be refunded to them with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till actual refund. (6) The State shall maintain accurate amount of recovery made and the nature/quantity of the produce removed by the private party is concerned. (7) These modified directions shall come into effect on and from 1st May 2016. (8) This modification shall not apply to exempted goods or industrial by-products like Klinker fly ash. 10. The directions issued on 12.11.2013 in respect of matters from State of Uttaranchal, remain unchanged. 11. Let these matters be listed for final disposal in the third week of September 2016.