9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (9) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the High Court that Rules 1-A(3)(b), 2, 3(ii) and 7(4) of the Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules, 1968 (the Rules) were void, unconstitutional and as such unenforceable against the appellants- petitioners. The Rules have been framed by the State Government under Sections 35 and 36 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882. A Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment dated June 14, 1984 dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quid pro quo. 3. So far as the first point is concerned, the precise argument was that the Rules can be framed only in respect of certain local area and not for the entire State. The High Court rejected the argument on the following reasoning : When a tree is cut at one end of the State and transported to the other end of the State, it would be anomalous to think of different rules being made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been validly made under Section 35(d) and (k) read with Section 36 and 63(c). Even otherwise a bare reading of Sections 35 and 36 make it clear that there is ample authority with the State Government to make rules imposing regulatory measures on the movement of timber within the State. 4. The High Court further found that the impugned Rules were only regulatory and did not in any manner infrac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tambaram and elsewhere large stocks of illicit timber having been found in saw-mills and with dealers, the impugned rules, which insist on a Form II pass to accompany during every movement of timber, and hammer mark being affixed on the transported timber, are absolutely necessary for the protection and management of forest wealth in the State of Tamil Nadu, Hence, the impugned rules are not viol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
