RAM CHANDRA TRIPATHI Vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER DUDHI MIRZAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal has been filed by a petitioner who moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for an order quashing a notification dated the 11th of March, 1961 issued by the State of U. P. under Section 38-3 of the Indian Forest Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as amended by the Indian Forest (U. P. Amendment) Act, 1956, and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Divisional Forest Officer and the Range Officer, to refrain from interfering with the appellant's right of felling and carrying away trees in the forest of which the appellant claimed to be a lessee. The relief was claimed principally on two grounds. The first ground was that Section 38-B of the Act was void as contravening the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution inasmuch as it laid down an unreasonable restriction on the right of the appellant to enjoy and hold his rights as lessee in the forest in question. The second ground was that no notice was served personally on the appellant prior to the issue of the notification under Section 38-B in order to enable him to make his representation against the proposed issue of the notification. This ground was coupled with the submission that publication of the proposed action to be taken under Section 33-B in the official gazette, in accordance with Section 38-D, did not give sufficient notice to the appellant and other persons affected by the notification, and as such it should be held that the procedure laid down in the Act itself made the restriction under Section 38-B unreasonable. It has appeared to us that in this case it is not at all necessary to go into the validity of Section 38-B of the Act or into the question whether the restriction imposed by that section should be held to be unreasonable in view of the procedure laid down for publication of notice that the State Government proposes to issue a Notification wider Section 38-B. We have found that, even if it be held that Section 38-B is valid and a notification published in accordance with Section 38-D does serve the purpose of conveying information to all persons concerned, this particular notification dated the 11th of March, 1961 has to be held in valid on the ground that it is beyond the scope of Section 38-B of the Act.

(2.) Under Section 38-B of the Act the State Government is empowered by notification in official gazette to regulate or prohibit in any forest:

(3.) Cases are well known where the law, when giving power to a Government, lays down the conditions which must be satisfied before the Government can exercise the power conferred on it, but the power has been exercised in breach of those conditions or beyond the scope of those conditions. It appears to us that the present is a case of this nature. As mentioned above, the Government under Section 38-B of the Act is given the power either to regulate or prohibit the doing of acts, mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) above in any forest. Such regulation or prohibition is to be enforced by the State Government by the issue of a notification only when it appears to be necessary for one or more of the purposes mentioned in Clauses (i) to (v) mentioned above. Clause (a) permits the State Government to regulate or prohibit the breaking up or clearing of the land for cultivation or any other purpose. A notification containing a perpetual prohibition to persons concerned from the act of breaking up or clearing up the land for cultivation or any other purpose can be necessary for conservation of trees and forests or for other purposes mentioned in Clauses (i) to (v), but we find it very difficult to hold that a total prohibition, and that also a perpetual one, directing persons concerned to refrain from all kinds of acts mentioned above in Clauses (b) to (e) can be necessary for any of the purposes mentioned in Clauses (i) to (v). For example, if there is a total prohibition to remain effective without any time limit directing persons not to lop or pollard trees or to cut, saw, convert or remove, trees, whatever the nature of the age of the trees may be, can hardly be ever held necessary for conservation of trees or forests or for any of the other purposes mentioned in Clauses (i) to (v). Cases may arise where it may be reasonable and necessary to prohibit all the acts mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) for a limited period during which it may be necessary that a forest should grow in case it has already been denuded very considerably. There may also be occasions where it may be necessary to issue orders regulating the acts mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) so that the persons concerned will only be permitted to lop or pollard trees or cut, saw, convert or remove trees of such a nature that such operations on those trees would in no way affect the proper conservation of the forests and may, in fact, on the other hand, be conducive to the maintenance of a proper forest. In the notification in question, what the Government did was to prohibit ah the acts mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) and also laid down no time limit during which that prohibition was to remain in force. The notification governed forests situated in as many as 42 villages. No consideration seems to have been given to the fact that the various forest areas in these 42 villages may, be at the time of issue of the notification, in different conditions. In forest where the trees may have been considerably denuded it might have been necessary to prohibit the cutting of any trees in those areas. Then there might have been areas where trees might be growing very close to each other. The growth might have been very thick and the trees might also be fully grown or might have even attained that age when removal of those trees would be advisable so as to permit fresh trees to grow. In this connection we may refer to the allegations in para 14 of the counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents themselves where it was stated that