The impugned Rule does not unreasonably restrict the right of individuals to dispose of their products within or outside the State, and the petitioners failed to make a case to assail the Rule.

Tashi Rabstan, J.

1. Petitioners call in question the vires of Sub-Rules 2 [The owner shall be free to sell the Khair wood to anybody, for utilization within or outside the state, on the price acceptable to him.] and 4 [The transportation permission may be issued within the state by the Divisional Forest Officer concerned and outside the state by the Empowered officer, for a specified purpose under these rules in favour of khair tree owner or any other agency to whom the owner may have sold the khair wood, khair firewood and other remnants of the felled khair trees.] of the Rule 8 of Jammu and Kashmir Non-Forest Land Khair Trees 'Acacia Catechu' (Management Plan) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter called as Rule of 2016 for short). It appears from the averments made in the writ petition that petitioners are aggrieved of permission, sale and transportation of Khair wood outside the State of Jammu and Kashmir. They are, thus, seeking direction to the respondents to allow and permit utilization of Khair wood exclusively within the State of Jammu and Kashmir and that too for Industrial purposes alone in conformity with SRO 194 of 1995, dated 03.08.1995.

2. The challenge to the impugned Rule has been made, inter alia, on the ground that Rule aforesaid permitting sale and transportation of Khair wood outside the State of Jammu and Kashmir, is in direct conflict with order dated 12.12.1996 passed by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995, titled T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India & Ors., which, as contended by the petitioners, has directed stopping of export of timber outside the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioners are also finding fault with the impugned Rule on the ground that the same is in direct conflict with Rule 10 and, therefore, cannot be sustained. It has been contended that on one hand impugned Rule permits sale and transportation of Khair wood outside the State of Jammu and Kashmir and on the other hand Rule 10 provides for control of Khair manufacturing Units in the State in order to see that Khair wood is utilized for industrial purposes only and is not misused or used for other purpose. Lastly, it is stated that impugned Rule will impact Khair based industries of the State and would lead to closure of local Khair wood based industries. On the basis of the aforesaid position, challenge has been thrown to Rule aforesaid.

3. On being put to notice, respondents have filed detailed response and have opposed the prayer of the petitioners. Writ petition has been resisted on the ground that permission, sale and transportation of Khair wood is regulated by statutory Rule, i.e., Rules of 2016 framed under Section 137 read with Sub-Section 2 of Section 37 of the J & K Land Revenue Act and that Rules of 2016 were permitted to be framed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 12.12.1996 passed in Writ Petition No. 171/96, titled Environment Awareness Forum v. State of J & K & Ors. It is insisted that petitioners have not been able to make out any case seeking declaration of Rule impugned ultra vires the Constitution or the Land Revenue Act. It is also averred that at no point of time any assurance was exerted that Khair wood would be exclusively made available to industrial units alone and that no transportation outside the State would be permitted. As a matter of fact NOC was issued by Forest Department with clear stipulation that there would be no commitment/assurance to provide Khair wood as raw material to the petitioners' Unit. It is further insisted that even Rule of 1995 notified vide SRO 194 of 1995, nowhere provides for utilization of Khair wood exclusively by the Industrial Units situated within State of Jammu and Kashmir. The respondents have thus contended that vide Order dated 26.09.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in categoric terms allowed felling of Khair trees in the State of Jammu and Kashmir subject to the condition stipulated in Para No. 45 of the report of Centr