MADANLAL SETHI AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 404 · Decided: 27-03-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
MADANLAL SETHI AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. ETC. 
MARCH 27, 1997 
IK RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, .T.T.] 
Madhya Pradesh Kaslitha Chiran (Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1984: Sec-
tions 7, 8, 9 and 13. 
M.P. Transit (Forest Produce) Rules, 1961: Rules 6(1)(2), 8, 9 and 27. 
Constillltion of India, 1950: Article 19(1)(g). 
Forest Produce---c?urchase from Govemment depot-Accountability of 
purchaser-licensee-Procedure and requirement to maintain proper record of 
D wood purchased-Validity of requirement-Held the Act deals with vmious 
steps involved stmting right from the cutting of the trees upto the delivery of 
the logs to the purchasers-T71ereafter it deals with the requirement of being 
in lawful possession of the wood so purchased and the necessity to accoulll 
for the same-Details to be kept by licensee are required only with the object 
of ensuring that the licensees who are the persons in the control of the 
E saw-mill and saw-pit or employee etc. are in lawful possession of the wood 
and of further ensuring that the wood in their possession was obtained from 
a lawful source and they have duly accounted for such a wood-T71e Rules 
cannot be declared ultra vires the Constitution as offending Article 19(1 )(g) 
or A1ticle 14 simply because some shortfall or discrepancy is noticed by the 
F 
officer in the quantity or quality of the wood-Equally, when officers take • 
action for the violation of the stalllt01y provisions, an individual case is 
required to be considered on the fact-situation-T71e Act and Rules cannot be 
declared ultra vires on account thereof. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2347 of 
G 1986 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.1.86 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in M.P. No. 2017 of 1984. 
D.D. Thakur, G.C. Gupta, Prakash Shrivastava, A.K. Sanghi, S.V. 
H Deshp;mde, Ashok Kr. Singh, S. Biswajit Singh and S.K. Agnihotri for the 
404 
( 
M.L.SETHlv. STATE 
405 
appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 2184/93. We have heard learned 
counsel for the parties. 
These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the High 
Court of Madhya Pradesh, made on 29.1.1986 and 14.11.1992 in M.P. No. 
2017 and M.P. No. 3764/92. 
A 
B 
The primary question m this case relates to the validity of the 
Madhya Pradesh Kashtha Chiran (Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1984 (for short, C 
the 'Act') and Rule 27 of the M.P. Transit (Forest Produce) Rules, 1961 
(for short, the 'Rules'). The appellants have challenged the validity of the 
above provisions of the Act and the Rules on the ground that they require 
them to maintain proper records and duly enter in the register certain 
specifications of the forest wood purchased by them under public auction D 
from the Government timber depots. After sawing and cutting the wood 
into different sizes, the appellants are required to make proper entries into 
the relevant register. When the consumer take out the wood from the 
timber depot, they are also required to submit a transit permit. Thereby, 
they have been made accountable to give particulars of the forest wood 
they purchase from the respective Government depots. lt is stated that the E 
licensees of the saw mills are being unnecessarily harassed by being asked 
to make numerous needless entries in the relevant register, like Forms D-1 
and D-2 and thereby getting subjected to confiscation of the wood lawfully 
purchased by them. It is stated that this cumbersome process hinders their 
business. The prescription of the details required of them also impinges F 
upon, and restricts their business. Thus, it is claimed that the Act and the 
Rules are arbitrary and unreasonable as they offend their fundamental 
right of freedom to carry on the business and trade under Article 19(1)(g) 
of the Constitution. The Division Bench, it is argued, has not correctly 
appreciated the grievance of the appellants. When the matter had come up G 
for consideration before us in the first instance, by order dated December 
19, 1996, we observed as under : 
"Shri S.S. Ray, the learned senior counsel appearing in this batch 
has concentrated on aspect, namely, that the Forest Officer, by a 
written undertaking have absolved themselves of their liability to H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
406 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997] 3 S.C.R. 
deliver the logs with specific measurements but will be delivered 
only in the lots as they are. When they entered in From

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.