BHARTIA AND SONS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As prayed by Mr. S. C. IV appearing for the State, this order is being passed to decide, as a preliminary issue the question arising in this case whether there was any legislative sanction for the directions contained in the letter, dated 10-7-2001 (Annexure 5) issued by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Bihar which in effect prohibit transportation of sisam wood (Dalbergia Sisoo) from Bihar to any place outside the State. In this letter, a declaration is made, purportedly of the legal position, that from the Ist paragraph of the notification of Bihar Timber and Other Forest Produce (Regulation of Transit) Rules, 1973 (framed under Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act) it was evident that those rules were framed to regulate the movement of timber and other forest produce within the State. Hence, there was no provision in those rules for issuing transit permit for transportation (of timber etc.) outside the State. The previous practice of issuing transit permits for transportation to different places outside the State was wrong. In that letter, it was further directed that in future it must be ensured that in terms of Section 3(ga) of the Rules the details of routes and names of destinations in the transit permit must confine within the boundaries of this State and it should also be borne in mind that those goods were being carried for consumption within the State. On the basis of this letter, the forest authorities are not only refusing to issue transit permits for transportation of sisam wood to any place outside the State but also seem to maintain that any transportation of sisam wood outside the State is impermissible and will not be allowed.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid order and seeking a direction to the Divisional Forest Officer, Muzaffarpur Division to issue transit permit to the petitioner for transportation of sawn sisam in logs and pieces from East Champaran in this State to different places outside the State. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the running of a Saw Mill. For running the Saw Mill, it holds a licence in Form 'C' bearing Licence No. 261 of 1996, issued under the provisions of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990 and the Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1993 framed thereunder. According to the petitioner, it has purchased certain quantity of sisam wood standing on raiyati lands from the respective holders of the lands under valid permit(s) issued by the Forest Department. The petitioner wishes to transport the sawn pieces of sisam to different places outside the State and it approached the Divisional Forest Officer, Muzaffarpur for issuance of transit permit(s), as on many occasions in the past. The Divisional Forest Officer, however, refused either to issue the transit permits as requested by the petitioner or to allow movement of the consignment(s) in the absence of the permits. The refusal of the Divisional Forest Officer either to issue transit permits or to allow movement of the consignment(s) without the permits is based on the directions given in the impugned order issued by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment on 10-7-2001.

(3.) Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner forcefully contended that the action of the respondent-authorities in refusing to issue transit permits and to allow the movement of the consignment(s) was violative of the constitutional mandate as contained in Article 301 and was an infringement of the petitioner's fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Mr. Mahto contended that leaving aside the issue of reasonableness of the ban sought to be imposed by the impugned order, there was no legislative sanction for the executive to issue such a prohibitory order.