http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RANCHI TIMBER TRADERS ASSOCIATION ETC.ETC

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       23/07/1996

BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. VENKATASWAMI K. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCALE  (5)498

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Eight writ  petitions were allowed by Division Bench of the  Patna  High  Court  holding  that  the  Rules  for  the establishment of  Saw-pits and  establishment and regulation of depots  framed in  the year 1983 by the State Government, Bihar  in  purported  exercise  of  powers  conferred  under sections 41,  42 and  76 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 were in excess of delegation or authorisation, exceeding mandate, and hence  a colourable  exercise. On  the  basis  of  these rules, a public notice was given by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Bihar  to the  effect that  the rules  required  all owners of Saw-pits and depots to obtain licences in terms by 28-2-1983, and  as a consequence if any saw-pit or depot was found unlicensed  from 1-3-1983,  that would  attract action and penalties  under the  rules. We  are required to examine the correctness or otherwise of such view of the High Court.      Straightaway, we  go to  the  Act  and  the  provisions whereunder the  State Government  claims to  have framed the 1983 rules.  As is  clear from  the prefatory portion of the rulest those are sections 41, 42 and 76 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.  Section 41 empowers the State Government to make rules to regulate the transit of forest produce. Sub-section 1 of  Section 41 provides that the State Government can make rules regulating  the transit of all timber and other forest produce by  land or  water. Clause  (e) of  sub section  (2) provides for  the establishment  and regulation of depots to which such  timber or other forest produce shall be taken by those in charge of it for examination, or for the payment of such money,  or in  order that  such marks may be affixed to its and  the conditions  under which  such timber  or  other forest produce  shall be  brought to,  stored at and removed from such  depots. Section  42 is  supportive of  Section 41 inasmuch as  it empowers the State Government to frame rules prescribing penalties  for breach of the rules in 4 terms of punishment of  imprisonment and imposition of fines. Section 76 apparently is all comprehensive for it provides the State

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

Government the  additional powers  to make rules. Clause (d) thereof, authorises  the  State  Government  to  make  rules generally, to carry out the provisions of the Act.      Now, the  High Court has taken the view that regulation of the business of timber and forest produce at Saw-pits and depots, is  not covered  by either  of  the  three  sections above-mentioned.      On hearing  counsel for the parties on the subject, and giving our  earnest consideration,  we get  to the view that the conclusion  of the High Court was totally erroneous. The variety of subjects provided in the sub-heads of sub-section (2) of  Section 41  are  preluded  with  the  expression  in particular and  without prejudice  to the  generality of the foregoing power".  wholesome, power  stands conferred on the State Government  to make  rules under  sub-section  (1)  of Section 41 with regard to transit of timber and other forest produce by  land or  water. Conferral of such powers inheres in it  the power  to frame rules in order to regulate places for stoppage, reporting examination and marking of timber or other forest  produce. Necessarily,  duty, fee,  royalty  or charges due  thereon become  due, if  imposed. In  order  to avoid breach  of the  rules, Section 42 gets into line. Then comprehensive power on the subject is given generally to the State Government as additional powers to make rules to carry out the  provisions of  the Act.  No one can be permitted to deny that  regulating the activity of keeping a saw-pit or a depot is  not an  activity to  which the  provisions of  the Indian Forest  Act,  1927  would  not  be  attracted.  Thus, requiring all the saw-pit holders or depot holders to obtain regulatory licences,  squarely fall  within  clause  (d)  of Section 76,  if not, (without holding so) under the power to regulate transit  by land  or air available under Section 41 of the  Act. These  three provisions  namely Sections 41, 42 and 76  reflect  an  integrated  scheme  to  carry  out  the provisions of  the Act  and as  the preamble  of the  Act is suggestive to  consolidate the laws relating to forests, the transit of  forest produce  and the  duty leviable on timber and other  forest produce.  The power to regulate by license the upkeep  of saw-pits and Depots is in any event ancillary to the  main power.  We, therefore,  have no  hesitation  to upset the  view of  the High Court by allowing these appeals and in  this manner dismissing the writ petitions which were preferred by  the respondents  before the High Court. We are doing so  because it  is otherwise  not  disputed  that  the second question  framed by  the High  Court relating  to the vires of  the Act  on the  touchstone of Articles 14, 19 and 301 of  the Constitution,  left undecided by the High Court, is not  required to  be decided  by us.  We allow the appeal accordingly. No costs.