1999 (2) TMI 667 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether factory-made 'Catechu' or 'Kattha' is considered a 'Forest Produce' under Section 2(4) of the Indian Forest Act.
2. The applicability of the U.P. Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978 to factory-made Kattha.
3. The constitutionality of Rule 3 of the U.P. Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978 under Articles 19(1)(g), 301, and 304 of the Constitution.
4. Whether the seizure of Kattha and the vehicle by the Forest Range Officer was lawful.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether factory-made 'Catechu' or 'Kattha' is considered a 'Forest Produce':

The primary issue in this case was whether factory-made 'Catechu' or 'Kattha' falls under the definition of 'Forest Produce' as per Section 2(4) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioner argued that the Kattha produced in their factory through a complex mechanical process should not be considered 'forest produce' as it is distinct from the traditional cottage industry Kattha. However, the court referred to the inclusive definition of 'forest produce' in Section 2(4), which explicitly includes 'Catechu', irrespective of whether it is found in or brought from a forest. The court also considered previous judgments, such as Karnataka Forest Development Corporation v. Contreads Private Limited and Forest Range Officer V.P. Mohammad Ali, which emphasized that processed products like rubber sheets and sandalwood oil remain forest produce. The court concluded that even factory-made Kattha is a forest produce within the meaning of the Act.

2. Applicability of the U.P. Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978:

The petitioner challenged the applicability of the U.P. Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978, arguing that a transit pass should not be required for factory-made Kattha. The court analyzed Rule 3 of the said Rules, which mandates a transit pass for the movement of any forest produce within the state. The court held that since factory-made Kattha is classified as a forest produce, it falls under the purview of these rules, requiring a transit pass for its movement.

3. Constitutionality of Rule 3 under Articles 19(1)(g), 301, and 304:

The petitioner contended that Rule 3 of the U.P. Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978, violated Articles 19(1)(g) and 301 of the Constitution by imposing unreasonable restrictions on the movement of forest produce. The court did not find any merit in this challenge, noting that the rules were enacted to prevent illegal exploitation of forest resources and maintain ecological balance. The court emphasized that the rules were validly enacted under the powers conferred by the Indian Forest Act and did not contravene constitutional provisions.

4. Legality of the Seizure by the Forest Range Officer:

The petitioner argued that the seizure of Kattha and the vehicle by the Forest Range Officer was unlawful, as the manufactured Kattha was not a forest produce. However, the court found that since factory-made Kattha is indeed a forest produce, the seizure was justified under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act for violating Rule 3 of the U.P. Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978.

Conclusion:

The writ petition was dismissed, affirming that factory-made 'Kattha' is a forest produce under the Indian Forest Act. The court upheld the applicability of the U.P. Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978, and found no constitutional violation in Rule 3. The seizure of Kattha and the vehicle was deemed lawful, and the court directed the authorities to proceed further in accordance with the law.