Back
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
R. L. Narasimham, C. J. And R. K. Das, J.
KASI PRASAD SAHU - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - Respondent
O. J. C. 174 Of 1961
Decided On : OCTOBER 16, 1962
FOREST PRODUCE - TRANSIT RULES - VALIDITY - INDIAN FOREST ACT, 1927 - SECTIONS 2(4), 41, 43, 45, 52(1), 53, 60, 85-A - ORISSA TIMBER AND FOREST PRODUCE TRANSIT RULES, 1958 - RULES 4, 6 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - ARTICLES 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g), 301, 305 - Whether the Orissa Timber and Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1958 requiring a permit from the authorised forest officials for transit of mahua flowers and other forest produce even though they have been collected from the lands of private parties and not from lands or forests belonging to Government is valid.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Excise contractor, challenged the validity of the Orissa Timber and Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1958, which required a permit from the authorised forest officials for transit of mahua flowers and other forest produce even though they have been collected from the lands of private parties and not from lands or forests belonging to Government.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Rules were valid and did not offend Articles 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g), or 301 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, dealing with forest produce are applicable only to such forest produce as is collected from Government lands or forests and not from the lands of private parties? 2. Whether such interference with private ownership of property would offend Article 19 of the Constitution and also Article 301 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted the definition of 'forest produce' in Section 2(4) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and held that mahua flowers, whether found in or brought from a forest or not, are deemed to be forest produce for the purpose of the Act. 2. The Court held that the provisions of Chapter VII of the Act, which deal with control over timber and other forest produce in transit, confer regulatory power on Government to control movement of forest produce even though the produce may not be the property of Government. 3. The Court held that the Rules, which were framed under Section 41 of the Act, merely prescribe the Rules for the movement of timber and other forest produce and do not go further than what has been provided in the Act. 4. The Court held that the Rules do not offend Articles 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g), or 301 of the Constitution of India, as they are merely regulatory in nature and do not amount to an unreasonable restriction or affect freedom of trade.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.
NARASIMHAM, C. J.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by an Excise contractor residing in Bolarigir district challenging the validity of the Orissa Timber and Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules)requiring a permit from the authorised forest officials for transit of mahua flowers and other forest produce even though they have been collected from the lands of private parties and not from lands or forests belonging to Government. The divisional Forest Officer, Bolangir Division, made it absolutely clear that Mahua flowers collected from trees standing on the lands of the tenants may be sold by them to anyone they liked and that there was no control over the sale of such flowers. But he pointed out that the transit of such flowers cannot be made without, a permit under the Rules and that the permit would be issued free of costs on a proper application by a Forest Officer. The petitioner however felt aggrieved by the said rules and the main contentions on his behalf by Mr. Das are as follows:
(i) A careful scrutiny of the various provisions of the Indian Forest Act would show that the provisions of the Act dealing with forest produce are applicable only to such forest produce as is collected from Government lands or forests and not from the lands of private parties; and (ii) In any case such interference with private ownership of property would offend Article 19 of the Constitution and also Article 301 of the constitution.
( 2 ) IT is necessary to notice some of the relevant provisions of the Indian Forest act. The preamble and the long title of the Act show that the Act was intended to consolidate the laws relating to forests, the transit of forest produce, and the duty leviable on timber and other forest produce. Thus transit of forest produce was dealt with as a separate subject under the Act. The Act does not say that the forest produce must necessarily belong to Govt. Clause (4) of Section 2 (Interpretation Section) divides forest produce into two classes. One class is defined in Sub-clause (a) and the other class is defined in Sub-clause (b) of Clause (4 ). 'mahua flowers' (mahua seeds) 'myrabolam' etc. are described in Sub-clause (a) and it is expressly stated that these articles shall be forest produce whether found in or brought from a forest or not. But in Sub-clause (b) of clause (4) while describing other forest produce it is expressly stated that they shall be forest produce only when found in or brought from a forest. Hence the Legislature by express definition made it absolutely clear that mahua flowers shall be deemed to be forest produce for the purpose of the Indian Forest Act whether they were brought from a forest or not. Giving the natural meaning to the words the obvious inference is that mahua flowers from trees grown even on private lands would come within the definition of forest produce. "timber" has been separately denned in Clause (6) of the interpretation section. But the expression has also been included in the definition of 'forest produce' given in Sub-clause (a) of Clause (4)of Section 2, Apparently the Legislature felt the necessity of giving a wide meaning to the expression 'timber', chapters II, III and IV of the Act deal with Reserved Forests, village Forests and protected Forests and they are not material for our purpose. Chapter V deals with control over forests and lands, not being the property of Government. The provisions of this Chapter would themselves show that the Forest Act is intended to be a piece of legislation not only in respect of Govt. forests but also in respect of forests and lands not belonging to Government. Chapter VI deals with duty on timber and other forest produce. This chapter also is not relevant. Chapter VII deals with control over timber and other forest produce in transit. Section 41, confers on the State Government the power to make rules to regulate the transit of forest produce. The power confe
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
