- (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing the Circular dated 24-10-1986 issued by the Government of Maharashtra, Revenue and Forests Department, according to which it was clarified that narpatti, chatai, petara (bamboo carpet) are forest produce within the meaning of section 2 (4) (b) (i) read with section 2 (6) and 2 (7) of the Indian Forests Act, 1927.
(3.) OUR attention is drawn to a decision given by the Supreme Court in the case of (Suresh Lohiya v. State of Maharashtra), 1997 (2) Bom. C. R. 656 : 1996 (2) Mh. L. J. 672 in which it is held that bamboo mat prepared from bamboo is not a forest produce under section 2 (4) of the Indian Forests Act, 1927. It is held that the expression forest produce does not take within its fold an article or thing which is totally different from forest produce, having a distinct character. In the case of Suresh Lohiya, the Apex Court was considering as to whether bamboo mat is a forest produce or not and the Court has held that bamboo mat is not a forest produce in the eye of law. The articles mentioned in the impugned circular also fall in following line and have a distinct character which is totally different from forest produce.;