BINOD KUMAR ROY, J. - (1.) Whether Factory or Mill prepared 'Catechu' or Katha is a 'Forest Produce', as defined under Section 2(4) of the Forest Act is the real question which requires our adjudication in this writ petition in which the prayer of petitioner, which is a limited company, whose factory is situated at Izzatnagar District Bareilly in our State, is to quash Range Case Crime No. 16/KNP/95-96 under Rules 3/28 U.P. Transit of Timber and other Forest Rules, 1978Complaint/Seizure Report dated 20-2-1996 (as contained in Annexure 10 to the writ petition). Its further prayer is to restrain the respondents from insisting it to take transit pass for moving Kattha manufactured by it.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is to this effect :-(i) Since 1921 it is engaged in manufacturing Kattha out of Khair Wood, which is a natural forest wood.(ii) Kattha is produced after processing Khair wood which takes a period of about 40-45 days. Firstly upper layer of the Khair wood is removed at the Kattha producing factories. Then inner hard wood is cut into small chips and boiled in water at about 102? C. Thus another liquor is prepared which is made thick by evaporation process. It is put into aluminium containers which are put into chillers. By this process thick liquor is formed into crystals and this crystallised and freezed liquor is filtered through vacuum filter. By this process water of the crystallised and freezed liquor is sucked. Thereafter the substance so recovered is mashed to make it uniform and given shape of about 1.5 milimetre thick plates. These plates are pressed by Hydraulic press to remove further water contents. Thereafter these plates are cut into 2" x 2" cakes. These cakes are dried in dehumidifier for about 15 days. Again these cakes are put in room through which normal air is passed for about 5 days.(iii) the mill Kattha so obtained by the above process is eatable and marketable item and not a forest produce within the meaning of Section 2(4) of the Indian Forest Act. Thus for its transit no pass is required and in fact the petitioner company had never required such a transit pass. The petitioner company sells its mill Kattha to wholesalers and retailers all over India and if at each stage a transit pass is required from the Forest authorities then it will cause immense difficulty and in fact bring the business of the petitioner unworkable and to a halt.(iv) There is vast difference between cottage industry Kattha and mill Kattha. The cottage industry kattha is made generally in the forest by the process of boiling of khair wood in Bhattis whereas mill kattha is manufactured by a complex mechanical process in a factory situated in town, and not forest. Their contents are also very different - the cottage industry kattha contains tannin, whereas the mill kattha contains more of catechu; mill kattha can be used directly in betels while the cottage industry kattha cannot be so used.(v) The sale and distribution of Khair wood is completely controlled by the U.P. Forest Corporation, which allots it its registered units including the petitioner. U.P. Forest Corporation issues gate pass (appending gate pass dated 27-1-1996 as Annexure 4) when Khair woods are lifted from its depots. A transit pass (appending transit pass dated 27-1-1996 as Annexure 5) is also issued by the U.P. Forest Corporation. A fee of 50 paise is charged for every quintal of forest produce for movement and transit pass. When any unit purchases khair woods from out side the State in that event a transit pass has to be obtained at U.P. Check post.(vi) The petitioner purchased khair woods from Hoshirarpur (Punjab) on 29-1-1996 which is evident from the Bill dated 29-1-1996 (copy appended as Annexure 6). A transit pass dated 30-1-1996 (copy appended as Annexure 7) was issued by the Divisional Forest Office, Bhagpat range, Meerut. On 19-2-1996 the petitioner company sent 100 cases of Kattha broken and 50 cases of Kattha Pan Madhuri (each case containing 20 Kg. of Kattha) to M/s. Kothari Products Ltd. through transporter. The vehicle carrying the cases was checked at G.T. Road (West) barrier by the Forest Range Officer, Kanpur Range (respondent No. 2) who illegally seized them as well as the vehicle carrying them under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act and registered the case in question. Respondent No. 2 submitted seizure report in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, X, Kanpur Nagar. As the Kattha manufactured by the petitioner company is not a forest produce, Respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction to seize them or the vehicle carrying them and arrest the driver driving the vehicle. Provisions of Indian Forest Act and U.P. Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978 are also not applicable in its case.(vii) Rule 3 of the U.P. Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978 is violative of Arts. 19(1)(g) and 301 of the Constitution inasmuch as it imposes a prohibition for moving any forest produce without transit pass. This is an unreasonable restriction, since it covers all forest produce irrespective of circumstance. Such restriction,which is wholly unreasonable, is not in the public interest. Before making the Rules aforementioned previous sanction of the President under Art. 304 of the Constitution of India has not been taken.2.1. In the supplementary affidavit following facts have been stated :- "2. That Webstor Dictionary defines the word CATECHU and TANNIN in the following manner :CATECHU - Any of several dry astringent substances; containing 40-45% Tannin obtained from certain acidic plants used in Dyeing and for Tanning." "TANNIN - Any of several dry astringent complex plenolic substances from barks, woods, leaves, roots and fruits of plants and variously used in tanning medicines, Dyeing, ink manufacture etc."3. That the OXFORD DICTIONARY defines the word 'CATECHU' and the word 'TANNIN' in the following manner :-CATECHU - Any of a group of Yellowish or brownish Acidic astringent compounds related to gallic Acid, which occur in galls, barks and other plants tissues and have the property containing with animal hides and converting it into leather, such substances collectively."Zerox copy of Page Nos. 206 to 208 of the book 'Economy Botany' written by Prof.. B.P. Pandey, M.Sc., Ph. D., Head of the Department of Botany, J.V. College, Baraut Ahita, published by S. Chandra and company Ltd., Ram Nagar, new Delhi, 1990 Edition has been appended for showing analysis of 'catechu' and Kutch'.
(3.) In the counter-affidavit of the Respondents, which has been sworn by the Forest Ranger, Social Forestry Division Kanpur, it has been stated as follows :-In the Forest Act there is no mention of a 'natural forest produce'. Only forest produce has been defined. J.P. Forest Corporation controls only the sale and distribution of khair wood, which is exploited by it from the forest owned by the State Government. The kattha which is Hindi equivalence of 'Catechu' obtained by the process mentioned, is very much a forest produce. Transit pass issued by the competent authority is required for transit of kattha as per Rule 3 of the U.P. Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978. Kattha whether found in or brought from a forest or not, is a Forest produce. So far as the provisions of Indian Forest Act and other associated Acts/Rules framed thereunder are concerned there is no distinction between 'cottage industry Kattha' and 'mill kattha'. There is no such provision for the exemption of mill kattha therein. Rule 6 was framed by the Government of U.P. by virtue of powers vested in it by different provisions of Indian Forest Act for a necessary check of illegal exploitation of the forest produce. Even as per Bhargava's Concise Hindi-English Dictionary the Hindi equivalence of the word 'kattha' is catechu. Procurement of gate pass from Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bareilly by the petitioner also shows that kattha is a forest produce, since such passes are issued by the Samiti for all forest produces which are purchased/sold/transported from their respective areas. U.P. Government Notification No. 7027/17-121-62 dated 10-11-64 (appended as Annexure C.A. 2) clearly shows that it includes forest produce, whether processed or not for the purpose of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam. The Forest Officer was fully justified in his acts because there was violation of Rule 3 aforementioned, which is punishable under Rule 28. The seizure report was submitted by the Range Officer, Kanpur Range and not by Respondent No. 2. Without mentioning the factum of filing of this writ petition the petitioner filed applications in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, X, Kanpur Nagar, seeking release of the seized Kattha and the vehicle, which were disposed of by order dated 27-3-96 directing the forest officials to give supardgi of the seized kattha and the vehicle till the pendency of the trial. The directions were complied with by the Range Forest Officer, Kanpur Range. The claim made in paragraphs 2 to 4 of the Supplementary Affidavit are incorrect. In the light of above, the writ petition, which is based on false and fabricated statements, has got no force and hence deserves to be dismissed.;