Applicability of the provisions of Acts and Rules to transit of forest produce.

ORDER :- These writ petitions, though at the instance of different petitioners, are dealt with together, as they involve a common question. It would suffice in this connection to notice the facts in W.P. No. 10061 of 1984. The petitioner in that case had taken a lease from the pattadars of the right to peel off bark in the trees standing thereon. In the course of enjoying such rights as lessee, the petitioner had been peeling off bark from Wattle trees, Bluegum trees, etc. The Wattle bark thus peeled of by the lessee is packed and transported from the patta lands of the pattadars to the markets. In the process of moving the wattle bark and other bark so removed from the patta lands, the Forest officials stopped either the pattadars of lessees and obstructed the movement of the bark and even attempted to confiscate it, as if some provision of law had been violated claiming that Wattle bark is not tree or timber and that the Timber Transit Rules would not apply, that as the lessees of the right to remove or peel off bark from the trees standing in the lands of the pattadar, they had the right to transport the bark peeled off and that the forest officials had no authority whatever to obstruct them, the petitioners have prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents and their officers and servants to forbear from interfering with the rights of the lessees to peel off, store and transport wattle bark to the market from the private patta lands of the lessor-pattadars.

2. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, they did not refer to any statutory provision under the Forest Act or the related enactments and the rules framed thereunder as justifying the interference with the movement of bark by the Forest officials. While accepting that Wattle bark collected by peeling off the bark from the natured wattle trees, which are grown in the Reserve Forests as well as patta lands, it was admitted in para 2 of the counter-affidavit that movement of bark may have to be regulated by the issue of transport certificates by the Ranger after verifying the origin of the bark. The respondents took the stand that though wattle bark is not timber as defined in the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, yet it would be forest produce and therefore subject to the relevant provisions contained in the Forest Manual. The interception and checking of the movement of the bark by the officials of the Forest Department was stated to have been resorted to prevent illegal removal and illicit transport of Wattle bark from the Government forests under the guise of removal of the same from the trees belonging to the pattadars. The respondents therefore maintained that they were only attempting to check and prevent illegal transactions and unlawful acts and not to interfere in the lawful pursuit of business activities in wattle bark.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there is no provision either in the Tamil Nadu Forest Act or other related enactments or the rules thereunder to prevent the peeling off and transport of wattle bark from the trees in the patta lands and that the respondents had no authority or power to intercept and obstruct the movement or the transport of the Wattle bark collected from the wattle trees standing in the patta lands. The learned Government Advocate for Forest Cases, while frankly accepting that there is no statutory provision or rule in the matter of regulation of the movement of peeled wattle bark similar to Timber Transit Rules, however, submitted that wattle bark would be forest produce and relied upon Ss. 41 and 56 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act to sustain the power of the Forest officials to check and intercept the movement of wattle bark.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 1457 of 1984 invited attention to the communications of the second respondent herein dt.14-2-1981 and 28-5-1981 to support the contention that wattle bark does not come under the description of