STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus RANCHI TIMBER TRADERS ASSOCIATION

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 842 · Decided: 23-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
RANCHI TIMBER TRADERS ASSOCJATJON 
JULY 23, 1996 
B 
[M.M. PUNCHH! AND K. YENKATASWAMJ, JJ.] 
Indian Forest Act, 1927: Sections 41, 42 and 76. 
Forest Produce and timber-Regulatio11 of-Rules framed for estab-
C lishme11t of saw pits and depo1J-Rules requili11g all saw pit holders and depot 
holders to obtai11 regulat01y lice11ces-Penalty for failure to obse1ve 
nlle:·}·-l\'otice by Chief Conse11 1ator of Forest to saw ]Jits and depot owners to 
obtai11 licence-Wiit chaliengi11g nlie.1--High Court holding that regulation of 
busi11ess of timber and forest produce was 11ot covered by Sectio11s 41, 42 and 
?fr-Appeal prefen-ed by State-Held conclusion of High Cowt was totally 
D erroneow-Sections 41, 42 and 76 reflect an integrated scheme to cany out 
the provisions of the A.ct-No one can be pennilled to deny that regulating 
the activity of keeping a saw-pit or a depot is not an activity to which the 
provisio11s of the Indian Forest Act would not be auracted-lmpugned 111/es 
held valid. 
E 
F 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2084-90 
of 1984. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.10.83 of the Patna High Court 
in C.W.J.C. Nos. 188, 412, 382, 373, 349, 364, 386 and 1234 of 1983 (R). 
M.P. Jha for the Appellants. 
D.P. Mukherjee for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
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, Bjhar in purported exercise of powers conferred under sec-
tions 41, 42 and 76 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 were in excess of 
H delegation or authorisation, exceeding mandate, and hence a colourable 
842 
.. ' 
--
STATE v. RANCHI TIMBER TRADERS ASSN. 
843 
exercise. On the basis of these rules, a public notice was given by the Chief A 
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 arc required 
to examine the correctness or otherwise of such view of the High Court. 
Straightaway, we go to the Act and the prmisions whereunder the 
Slate Government claims to have framed the 1983 rules. As is clear from 
B 
the prefatory portion of the rules, those are sections 4.1, 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 l of C 
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 payn1ent of such money, or in 
D 
order that such marks may be affixed to it; and the conditions under v.1hich 
such tin1ber or other forest produce shall be brought to, .'\tared at and 
removed fron1 such depots. Section 42 is supportive of Section 41 inas1nuch 
as it empo\vers the Stale Govern1nent to frame rules prescribing penalties 
for breach of the rules in tern1s of punishment of i1nprisonn1ent and 
imposition of fines. Section 76 apparently is all comprehensive for it E 
provides the State Government the additional po\vers to make rules. Clause 
( d) thereof, authorises the Slate 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 
F 
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 lhe conclusion of the High G 
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 Stale 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 H 
844 
SUPRE
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.