IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 219 OF 2005

State of Bihar & Ors.   ...Appellants

Versus

Musafir Ram & Ors.     ...Respondents                With                C.A.No.220/2005                C.A.No.221/2005                C.A.No.222/2005                C.A.No.223/2005

O  R  D  E  R

These appeals  involving common questions of law and fact are directed

against an order dated 29.11.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of

judicature at Patna in several Letters Patent Appeals affirming interim orders passed

by the learned Single Judge of the said Court releasing Kendu Leaves seized from the

respondents on the premise that the same being perishable in nature  and as 70% of

the amount had already been paid by the purchaser to the Panchayats the goods may

be released subject to deposit of the  rest 30% of the price.

The Division Bench noticed as under:

"  Learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  after  argument  says  that  if  it  is decided that the leaves were collected from the reserve forest then in such a situation the State will be at a loss. The submission of the learned counsel appears to be not tenable because if any order is passed that is always subject to final adjudication of the  case.  However,  we  make  it  clear  that  the  entire  deposit  i.e.  100%  of  the consideration  money  by  the  purchasers  would  be  subject  to  result  of  the  writ petitions."  

Before we embark upon the contentions raised before us, we may notice

that this Court by an order dated 7.1.2005  

-1-

while granting 'Leave' in certain matters directed as under:

" Learned counsel for the respondent auction purchasers submit that they have  deposited  the  entire  100 per  cent  consideration  amount,  therefore,  pray  for immediate release of the goods. If that be so, the forest produce, in question, shall be released with necessary transit permits within three days from today."

The said order, however, was further clarified by this Court in its order

dated 11.1.2005 which is to the following effect:

" In our order dated 7.1.2005 inadvertently following further directions were not transcribed. Therefore, after hearing the parties, we think it appropriate that the following directions also be included in addition to the directions already issued on 7.1.2005.

In the event of State succeeding in the appeal, the State will be entitled for compensation that may be fixed by this Court at the time of final disposal.

If the Court ultimately finds that the sale consideration does not reflect the true price, the auction purchasers would have to pay the difference. At the same time if the respondents succeed and if the Court deciding the appeal finally considers it appropriate  then the  respondents  will  be  entitled  to damages,  if  any,  suffered  by virtue of the delayed delivery of the forest produce.

The above directions shall be included in our order dated 7.1.2005 as part of the same."

Indisputably, the aforementioned orders have been carried out.  

Certain basic facts are, furthermore, not in dispute.

The State of Bihar by resolution dated 23.10.2003 in exercise of its power

under Article 243(G) of the Constitution of India delegated its power in favour of

Gram Panchayats opining that the Gram Panchayats are responsible  for plantation,

maintenance  of  plants  of  minor  forest  produce,  extension  work  and  training

programmers for improvement of the economic states of the villagers.

-2-

It was further stated:

" This delegation of power is not valid for sanctuary and national parks."

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State of Bihar contends before us

that the Central Empowered Committee constituted by this Court in the case of T.N.

Godavarman Thirumalpad  Vs.  Union  of  India(C.A.No.202/1995)  directed  that  the

prohibited  activities  as specified  therein  which  included collection of  minor forest

produce  should  not  be  allowed  to  be  undertaken  in  the  protected  areas  which,

indisputably, includes National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries.

We would place on record the Chart produced by the learned Counsel to

show the factual matrix involving these Civil Appeals. It reads as under:

1. Respondent Name - Musafir Ram +5,R-6,R-7 Proforma    CWJC No.        -  11122/2004

          Order of S.J.   - 14.10.2004            L.P.A.No.       - 1131/2004 dt.1.11.2004            Impugned order  - 29.11.2004            SLP No.         - 26318/2004            C.A.No.         - 219/2005            Remarks         - 1100 bags @630/- per bag

2. Respondent Name - Sheonath Rai+3,R-5,R-11 Proforma    CWJC No.        -  11232/2004

          Order of S.J.   - 14.10.2004            L.P.A.No.       - 1129/2004 dt.1.11.2004            Impugned order  - 29.11.2004            SLP No.         - 26319/2004            C.A.No.         - 220/2005            Remarks         - 4600 bags @630/- per bag

      3. Respondent Name - Shaukat Ali+17,R-19-26 Proforma    CWJC No.        -  11081/2004

          Order of S.J.   -  7.10.2004            L.P.A.No.       - 1130/2004 dt.1.11.2004            Impugned order  - 29.11.2004            SLP No.         - 26321/2004            C.A.No.         - 221/2005            Remarks         - 14,491 bags @ sale price per bag                        

          -3-   

4. Respondent Name - Lakshman Bind+ 4, R-6 Proforma    CWJC No.        -  10128/2004

          Order of S.J.   -  8.11.2004            L.P.A.No.       -  ____            Impugned order  - 8.11.2004            SLP No.         - 25882/2004            C.A.No.         - 222/2005            Remarks         - 305 bags @620/- per bag                                5. Respondent Name - Kamraj Singh +4,R-6 Proforma

  CWJC No.        -  9825/2004            Order of S.J.   - 8.11.2004            L.P.A.No.       - ______

          Impugned order  - 8.11.2004            SLP No.         - 25996/2004            C.A.No.         - 223/2005            Remarks         - 200 bags @620/- per bag                    

On an allegation that the respondents herein got Kendu leaves collected

from the Kaimur Wild Life Sanctuary, raids were conducted by the  Forest Range

Officer  and   different  quantities  of  MFP-Kendu  Leaves  were  seized.  Intimation,

thereabout,  was  also  given  to  the  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,  Kaimur  in  terms of

Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act.

The Chief Wildlife Warden also made inspection and submitted its report

in regard thereto.

An application was filed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kaimur in the

Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate to allow the auction of the perishable goods. The

same was  challenged  in  the  writ  petition  by  the  respondents  herein,  wherein,  as

noticed hereinbefore interim orders came to be passed by the learned Single Judge as

also the Division Bench of the Patna High Court.

The  learned  counsel  for  the  respondents,however,  contends  that  the

Panchyati Raj institutions keeping in view the provisions of Article 243 (G) read with

Entry  7  of  the  XIth  Schedule  of  the  Constitution  of  India  as  also  in  view of  the

abovesaid resolution dated 23.10.2007 issued by the State of Bihar,  are entitled to

collect minor forest produce.

It has been disputed that the collection of Kendue leaves had been effected

from the Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary -4-

as alleged by the forest authorities. It was furthermore contended that the Mukhiyas

of the respective villages are not being prosecuted as also the collections have been

made upon obtaining all necessary permissions.

The impugned orders are interim ones.  The question as to  whether the

authorities of the Forest department of the State of Bihar were legally empowered to

carry out  the  searches  and seizures  in  the  teeth  of  the  aforementioned  resolution

dated  23.10.2003  is  a  question  which  requires  determination  of  the  appropriate

authority. Some disputed questions of fact are also involved in the writ petition filed

by the concerned respondents  herein which are pending decision before a learned

Single Judge of the Patna High Court. The said writ petitions, we are informed at the

Bar, are running on the daily board.

In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice

would  be  subserved  if  the  interim orders  passed  by  this  Court  Court  are  made

absolute subject of course to the ultimate decision of the Patna High Court in the

aforementioned writ petition.

We would, however, keeping in view the fact that as the question involved

is an important one request the High Court to consider the desirability of disposing of

the   matter  as  expeditiously  as  possible  and  preferably  within  a  period  of  three

months from the date of communication of this order.

The appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs.

......................J.       [S.B. SINHA]

......................J.       [ V.S. SIRPURKAR ]

New Delhi, April 3, 2008.

-5-