- (1.) Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 2104/93. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, made on 29-1-1986 and 14-11-1992 in M. P. No. 2017 and M. P. No. 3764/92.
(3.) The primary question in this case relates to the validity of the Madhya Pradesh Kashtha Chiran (Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1984 (for short, the Act) and Rule 27 of the M. P. (Transit (forest Produce) Rules, 1961 (for short, the Rules). The appellants have challenged the validity of the above provisions of the Act and the Rules on the ground that they requires them to maintain proper records and duly enter in the register certain specifications of the forest wood purchased by them under public auction from the Government timber depots. After sawing and cutting the wood into different sizes, the appellants are required to make proper entries into the relevant register. When the consumers take out of the wood from the timber depot, they are also required to submit a transit permit. Thereby they have been made accountable to give particulars of the forest wood they purchase from the respective Government depots. It is stated that the licensees of the saw mills are being unnecessarily harassed by being asked to make numerous needless entries in the relevant register, like Forms D-1 and D-2 and there by getting subjected to confiscation of the wood lawfully purchased by them. It is stated that this cumbersome process hinders their business. The prescription of the details required of them also impinges upon, and restricts their business. Thus, it is claimed that the Act and the Rules are arbitrary and unreasonable as they offend their fundamental right of freedom to carry on the business and trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Division Bench, it is argued, has not correctly appreciated the grievance of the appellants. When the matter had come up for consideration before us in the first instance, by order dated December 19, 1996, we observed as under: "Shri S. S. Ray, the learned senior counsel appearing in this batch has concentrated on one aspect, namely, that the Forest Officers, by a written undertaking have absolved themselves of their liability to deliver the logs with specific measurements but will be delivered only in the lots as they are. When they entered in Form-D under Rule 6(1) Extract from M. P. Kashtha Chiran (Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1984 read with Section 8 of the Adhiniyam, it enumerates entry on open stock of the species, its Omt. Sawn Ome., date, T. P. No., Name of Species Depot from which it was purchased logs, Nos., Omt. Sawn Omt. received from Omt. the Forest Department and other than Forest Department. Various grounds have been raised in the SLP (C) No. 2104/93 arising out of the order dated November 14, 1992 made in M. P. No. 3764/92 stating that it would be impracticable for the saw mill owners or merchant to make necessary entries when they were not delivered with the above specifications and the non-compliance renders them forfeited their stock and liable to prosecution. Shri. Gulabe Gupta, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents states that in each depot various types of the logs would be stocked in store of different sizes at different places separately. Intending purchasers were kept on notice of various sizes. A willing purchaser in the open auction from the above lots each lot contains not only species, the length of the timber, it contains etc. the details will be available on verification and satisfaction. On their purchase once they take possession of the logs, they require to entire these details in Form-D 1. Similarly, after taking over to the saw mill, they require to fill in detail in Form-D2. He further explains Form-D2 with reference to Rule 6(2) of the rules relate to the owner of the saw mill and opening balance received during the day and the quantum sawn during the day, delivered to the owners (purchasers the balance on the date require to be entered. Similarly, Form-D3 relates to monthly abstract of the receipt and disposal of the wood purchased or brought for sawing during that month and disposed of. Accordingly, there is no difficulty in filling up all these forms in actual practice. Unfortunately, the Government have not filed any counter nor produced any material in support of the contentions learned counsel seeks to impress upon us. It is necessary in the circumstances that a counter - affidavit by a competent officer requires to be filed and also the material in support thereof requires to be produced before the Court. Learned counsel seeks for and granted one month time for filing the counter-affidavit and producing the record. One week thereafter for rejoinder is granted. List after five weeks." ;