SATYESHWAR ROY, J.

1. In this batch of eight writ petitions the vires of the Bihar Rules for the Establishment of Saw Pits and Establishment and Regulation of Depots, 1983 (1983 Rules) has been challenged. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.

2. On 18th of January 1983, the Governor of Bihar in exercise of the power conferred by Sections 41, 42 and 76 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (the Forest Act, framed 1983 Rules). By these rules establishment and running a saw pit or depot without previous obtaining the licence in proper form under 1983 Rules is prohibited. With regard to the detail provisions of 1983 Rules, I will refer the same as and when necessary. A public notice was given by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Bihar to the effect that in view of 1983 Rules, all owners of sawpits and depots were required to obtain licence by 28-2-1983 and on and from 1-3-1983 if any unlicensed sawpit or depot was found, action would be taken for the same. Divisional Forest Officer of different divisions also gave notice to the owners of sawpits and depots by enclosing copies of 1983 Rules. The petitioners are sawmill owners and timber depot owners.

3. The vires of 1983 Rules was challenged on two grounds:

(i) whether the delegate exceeded its mandate and in the guise of exercising delegated legislative authority, it acted in colourable exercise of powers; and

(ii) if it is found that the delegate was competent in framing the rules nevertheless framed law, which, although within its authority and legislative competence, is vitiated on account of violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 301 of the Constitution.

4. The main submissions were made by Sri B.P. Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in CWJC No. 412 of 1983 (R) and Sri Biswarup Gupta, learned counsel appearing in CWJC No. 373 of 1983 (R) adopted the argument of Mr. Singh and supplemented by his own submission. The learned counsel appearing in other cases adopted the argument of Mr. Singh and Gupta.

5. With regard to point No. (i) it was submitted by Mr. Singh that there was no authorisation under any of the provisions of the Forest Act to the State Government to frame rules impugned in there cases. He submitted that either under Sec. 41 nor under Section 76 of the Forest Act the delegate was authoriser to frame the rules in question. Mr. Singh submitted that the preamble of the Forest Act will show that it was enacted to consolidate the law relating to the forest, the transit of forest produce and the duty leviable on timber and other forest produce and as 1983 Rules have been framed for neither of the three purposes, it is ultra vires the power of the delegate.

6. To find out whether the subordinate legislative authority acted within its authorisation, it is to be determined what actually is the authorisation and then to decide whether the subordinate legislative complied with that authorisation. The delegate cannot enlarge the object of the Act and cannot give an expanded or different meaning to any word used in that Act. In other word it shall have to be determined whether the delegate acted within the four corners of the Forest Act and that 1983 Rides are capable of being related to the powers conferred by the Forest Act. If there has been misconstruction of the Forest Act, the rules must be struck down. Mr. Singh and other learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General, who appeared for the Respondents, agreed that the first point is to be determined keeping in view these principles.

7. Before the Forest Act was enacted, the law relating to forests in British India contained in the Indian Forest Act, 1878 and its amending Act. The Indian Forest Act, 1927 was, therefore enacted to consolidate the law relating to forests, the transit of forest produce and the duty leviable on timber and other forest produce. Chapter II of the Forest Act deal