Chinnappa Reddy, J. - (1.) The economic exploitation of the tribals living in the Rampachodavaram and other Agency areas in Andhra Pradesh by tradesmen coming from the plains is a notorious fact of recent history. One of the measures taken by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to stem the exploitation of tribals and to promote their economic interests and social welfare, was to establish a Corporation known as the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Tribes Co-operative Finance and Development Corporation Ltd., a society registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act. Amongst the objects of the Corporation were:"(1) to purchase outright the produce brought by the members of the scheduled tribes through the Agency of any primary marketing society, hereinafter referred to as Affiliated Societies". and market it to the best advantage and for this purpose to take up forest confess" of bamboo coupes, fuel and for procurement of minor forest produce from the Govt., (2) to supply the requirements of the members of the scheduled tribes through the agency of the affiliated Societies by making bulk purchases; (3) to co-ordinate, supervise and control the activities of the affiliated societies, (4) to undertake activities such as processing and grading for the benefit of the Corporation and its affiliated Societies and their members, and for this purpose to own or hire the necessary plants and machinery:(5) to own or hire and ply lorries on hire for the transport of its goods and those of its affiliated societies, their members and others; (6) discharge prior debts of the members of Scheduled Tribes; and (7) to undertake generally such other activities as are conducive to the promotion of the economic interests and social welfare of the members of the scheduled tribes and the attainment of these and other objectives."
(2.) Several 'minor forest produce lease units' were leased to the Corporation by the Government from time to time and it appears that ultimately it came to be realised that unless all the minor forest produce units were leased to the Corporation on a monopoly basis, exploitation of tribals by tradesmen would not cease. As a result of this realisation the Government of Andhra Pradesh decided to grant lease of minor forest produce leaseunits to the Corporation on a monopoly basis. So, by G. O. No. 142 dated 23rd January 1962 the Government purported to grant lease of the minor forest produce leaseunits in the Godavari lower division for a period of six years but in actual terms the G. O. only authorised the Corporation to collect seigniorage from the purchasers of minor forest produce on all items collected by the Agency tribes from the unreserves of Rampa Agency. The tradesmen moved quickly in the matter. Four persons, two of then professing to be tribals residing in the Rampa Agency and two non-tribals belonging to the plains, filed O. S. No. 4 of 1962 in the Court of the Agent of Government of Andhra Pradesh, at Kakinada, "(a) for a declaration that the leasehold granted by the State Government to the 1st defendant consists of a "mere right to collect seigniorage" from the purchasers of the minor forest produce in the unreserves of the Rama Agency and that the tribals in the Rama Agency have a right to sell the minor forest produce in the unreserves of the Rama Agency at the notified shandies to whomsoever they liked and that the purchasers are entitled to remove the minor forest produce so purchased on payment of seigniorage to the defendants, and (b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their offiecials from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs' exercise and enjoyment of the rights declared under clause (a) supra:" Though Plaintiffs 1 and 2 professed to be tribals, it is easy to see that they were mere stooges of non-tribal tradesmen.
(3.) The suit was decreed on 10th March 1964 by the District Judge of East Godavari. The Government realised the mistake committed by them in authorising the collection of seigniorage instead of minor forest produce in G. O No. 142 dated 23rd January 1962 and in order to rectify the mistake issued G. O. Ms. No. 2645 dated 14th November, 1964 suitably amending the earlier G. O. by replacing the entries mentioning seigniorage with the entry "Right to collect minor forest produce from the unreserved of Rampa Agency". The Corporation preferred an appeal to the High Court. A learned single Judge allowed the appeal but his judgment was reversed by a Division Bench under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The Division Bench found that under Rule 2 of the Special Rules for the management of the reserved and unreserved lands in the Rampa Agency of the East Godavari District all the permanent residents of Rampa Agency were empowered to gather minor forest, produce throughout the said area, free of charge and without permits and that it followed therefrom that the persons who gathered the produce were entitled to deal with it as owners. It was held that the Government was not entitled to impose any restrictions contrary to the rules. Accordingly it was declared: "For the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 who am permanent residents of the Rampa Agency are entitled to a declaration as prayed for that the leasehold granted by the State Government to the first defendant consists of a "mere right to collect seigniorage" from the purchasers of the minor forest produce in the unreserves of the Rampa Agency at the notified shandies to whomsoever they liked and that the purchasers are entitled to remove the minor forest produce so purchased on payment of seigniorage to the defendants. Though the lease in question was granted in 1962 for a period opt six years and the lease has expired, we are informed that the lease has been renewed on the same terms for a further period. Therefore, the plaintiffs will also be entitled to the permanent injunction asked for restraining the defendants and their officials from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs' exercise and enjoyment of the rights declared above." The suit was however dismissed in so far as Plaintiffs 3 and 4 were concerned as they were not permanent residents of Rampa Agency.;