2001(3) ALL MR 72
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY(NAGPUR BENCH)
J.N. PATEL AND P.S. BRAHME, JJ.
Mahadeo S/O Rajaramji Mahadule & Ors. Vs. State Of Mharashtra & Ors.
Writ Petition No. 2322 of 1987,Writ Petition No. 2518 of 1987,Writ Petition No. 59 of 1988,Writ Petition No. 66 of 1988,Writ Petition No. 2915 of 1988,Writ Petition No. 100 of 1990
22nd February, 2001
Petitioner Counsel: Shri. P.G.PALSHIKAR
Respondent Counsel: Shri. M.P.BADAR, Shri. T.R.KANKALE
Forest Act (1927), S.2(4)(b)(i)(6) and (7) - Govt. of Maharashtra, Revenue and Forest Department circular dt.24-10-1986 - Term "forest produce" - Bamboo carpet do not fall within the meaning of S.2(4)(b)(i) read with S.(6) and 2(7) of Act - Words and phrases - Forest produce.
The narpatti, chatai, petara (bamboo carpet) do not fall within the term forest produce as defined in S.(4)(b)(i) read with S.2(6) and 2(7). Therefore, the circular dt. 24-10-1986 of Govt. of Maharashtra clarifying that those products come within the definition of this provision is liable to the quashed in view of apex court decision in 1996(2) Mh. L.J. 672. W.P.No. 67/1996 dt 31-8-96 (Bom.) held per incurium.1996(2) Mh. L.J. 672 applied. [Para 5]
Cases Cited:
Suresh Lohiya V. State of Maharashtra, 1996(2) Mh. L.J. 672 [Para 3]
State of Maharashtra Vs. Mohd. Idris, 1997(1) ALL MR 218 [Para 4]
Forest Range Officers & Ors. V.P.Mohammad Ali, Cri. App. Nos.420-422/1993. [Para 4]
Khushboo Enterprieses V.Forest Range Officer, Cri. App. No.423/1993 [Para 4]
Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Ltd.V.Cantreads Pvt. Ltd, [Para 4]
JUDGMENT
J.N.PATEL, J. :- Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing the Circular dated 24.10.1986 issued by the Government of Maharashtra, Revenue & Forests Department, according to which it was clarified that narpatti, chatai, petara (bamboo carpet) are forest produce within the meaning of Section 2(4)(b)(i) read with the Section 2(6) and 2(7) of the Indian Forests Act, 1927.
3. Our attention is drawn to a decision given by the Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Lohiya V. State of Maharashtra (1996(2) Mh.L.J. 672) in which it is held that bamboo mat prepared from bamboo is not a forest produce under Section 2(4) of the Indian Forests Act, 1927. It is held that the expression 'forest produce' does not take within its fold an article or thing which is totally different from forest produce, having a distinct character. In the case of Suresh Lohiya, the Apex Court was considering as to whether bamboo mat is a forest produce or not and the Court has held that bamboo mat is not a forest produce in the eye of law. The articles mentioned in the impugned circular also fall in following line and have distinct character which is totally different from forest produce.
4. Mr. Badar, learned Special Counsel appearing for the Forest Department states that this Court has taken a different view in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Mohd. Idris, 1997(1) ALL MR 218 (Writ Petition No.67/1996 decided on 31/8/1996) by placing reliance in the case of Forest Range Officer & ors. V.P.Mohammad Ali & Ors. (Criminal Appeal Nos.420-422/1993) and Khushboo Enterprieses V. Forest Range Officer & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No.423/1993) as well as in the case of Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Ltd. V. Cantreads Pvt. Ltd. We find that the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Suresh Lohiya's case would govern the field as it is the last word in the matter and while this Court disposed of the petition, (State of Maharashtra V. Mohd. Idris, 1997(1) ALL MR 218) on 31/8/1996, probably the judgment in Suresh Lohiya's case was not brought into the attention of this Court and that is why a different view has been taken.
5. We are informed by the learned counsel for the Respondents/Forests Department that the State Government is moving the Union of India for necessary amendment to the Indian Forests Act so as to include such articles within the definition of forest produce. But well, that may take its own time; in so far as the meaning given to the definition of forest produce by the Apex Court is concerned, will have to be accepted. Therefore, we quash and set aside the circular dated 24.10.1986. Rule made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.