RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a forest contractor and owns his industry at Bareilly. In parts of this province Borang trees grow sporadically mixed up with other species of trees. The State Government was not aware of its utility for the manufacture of pencils and slat and for a number of years these trees used to be sold along with other spe cies of trees. But, when this fact came to the knowledge of the State Government, it decided to allot available Borang trees to bona fide registered pencil and slat manu facturers, instead of selling the trees by public auction. With the growth of the pen cil industry in the State a shortage of Borang wood set in and as the pencil and slat manufacturers were at issue as to the Dumber of trees to be allotted to them, the Government decided to auction the Borang trees. This decision was taken by a letter issued by the Chief Conservator of Forest on the 28th August, 1972 (Annexure 'A' to the petition). The letter, however, confined the auction only to such pencil manufactur ers who had obtained a certificate from the industries Department The category of pier -sons entitled to participate in the auction was however extended so as to include slat manufacturers also, by another order dated 7th September, 1971. Thereafter, an auction notice on 28th September, 1971 was issued but it expressly stated that only pencil and slat manufacturers would be entitled to bid at the auction. It appears that earlier to this by an order dated 4th September, 1971 (Annexure 'A') to the counter -affidavit, the State Government, Industries Department, had issued instructions that only such pen cil and slat manufacturers should be per mitted to bid at the auction who had ob tained certificates from the Industries De partment. The auction was, thereafter, held on the 28th September, 1971 in respect of certain areas and on the 12th October, 1971, in respect of others. The petitioner has challenged this auction and has prayed for quashing the same. A further prayer has been made for directing the respon dents Nos. 1 to 6 not to make any auction of Borang trees on the basis of directions contained in the letter dated 28th August, 1971 and 7th September, 1971 (Annexures 'A' and 'BO to the petition.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has Urged that the State Government in confin ing the auction only to pencil manufactur ers and manufacturers of pencil slat has without any reasonable basis, discriminated against the other bidders and the act of the State Government in adopting this proce dure for the sale of Borang trees imposes an unreasonable restriction on the peti tioner's right of carrying on business of forest contract. Counsel for the respondents has on the other hand urged that the trees in question were the exclusive property of the State Government and it could adopt any method it liked for conducting the sale of the trees and none of the fundamental rights of the petitioner have as such been infringed

(3.) THIS position was reiterated in the case of United States v. Martha Insley, (1887 -88) 32 L Ed 968 = (130 US 263). Referring to the nature and the purpose for which pro perty is held by the United States, then Lordships on page 969 observed: