Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

Mulibash Hastasilpa Samabay Samity Ltd. and Ors. Vs.State of Assam and Ors.

Country/Territory
India
Type of court
National - higher court
Date
Feb 1, 2006
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
High Court of Gauhati
Judge
Sudershan Reddy, B.
Sarma, H.
Reference number
AIR 2006 Gau 113
Language
English
Subject
Forestry
Keyword
Non-timber products
Abstract
This Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27-9-2001 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants, in which they claimed not to be required to obtain transit pass/permit for transportation of the finished products made of bamboo and canes as they are not 'forest produce' within the meaning of that expression as provided for under Section 3(3) of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891. The State Govt. on 4-5-1992 issued a Notification in this sense. The appellants herein sought for appropriate relief virtually seeking enforcement of the Notification under which, admittedly, no transit pass/permit as such required for transportation of finished products including Beti & Chati. The Notification dated 4-5-1992 issued by the Govt. still continues to be in operation and its validity is not the subject matter of the writ petition. In an authoritative pronouncement(in Suresh Lohiya v. State of Maharashtra and Anr), the Supreme Court, while construing analogous provisions in Indian Forest Act, 1927 and having framed the question whether bamboo mate is a 'forest produce' as is this expression known to the Indian Forest Act, 1927, held that "... though bamboo as a whole is forest-produce, if a product, commercially new and distinct, known to the business community as totally different is brought into existence by human labour, such an article and product would cease to be a forest-produce. In the appealed order, however, the Judge took the view that Beti & Chati are nothing but split form of bamboo, which is capable of being transformed without any skill and, therefore, cannot be treated as finished products But, whether Beti & Chati are the finished products is not an issue either in the writ petition or before us in this Writ Appeal. In the circumstance, the conclusion drawn in the Notification that Beti & Chati are the finished products and totally distinct from bamboo as understood in the commercial world cannot be interfered with. In the circumstances. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment under appeal is set aside and the writ appeal allowed. The authorities are required to implement and follow the Notification dated 4-5-1992 issued by the Government as long as it is in operation. This order, however, shall not preclude the State Government. to take appropriate steps, if it so desires, to make necessary amendment to the Notification dated 4-5-1992.
Full text
www.indiankanoon.org