STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. KISANROOP KAPAGATE AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these revisions are arising out of the same order passed by the Additional District Judge, bhandara on 29-8-1989 in various Misc. Civil appeals Nos. i. e. 7/85, 41/85, 47/85, 6/87, 44/89, 46/89, 45/89, 47/89 and 59/89. The non-applicants/ plaintiffs haye filed all the suits before the civil Judge. Senior Division, Bhandara wherein it has been prayed that the defendants/applicants be restrained by issuing ad-interim injunction from any way obstructing the plaintiffs in the transport of Narpatti, Zhakni, Sarak, Tawdi and Chattai etc. for want of transit pass or seizing the goods for want of transit pass till the decision of the suit. Under Ex. 5, on the application for injunction the court below has passed an order on 30th August 1985 restraining the defendants from obstructing the transport of Chattai and other things by the defendants. The trial court has passed an order directing the plaintiffs to submit an account of transport of the above goods every month before 10th of each month. This order was challenged in appeal by the State before the appellate court and the appellate court, by its order dated 29th August 1989 has confirmed the order passed by the trial court and all the 9 appeals came to be dismissed. Similarly the counter-objection in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 6/87 also came to be rejected. Aggrieved by this order passed by the court below the revisions came to be filed by the State of Maharashtra praying that this order of injunction granted in favour of the non-applicants be vacated. This court while entertaining the revisions has refused to grant stay but granted relief of early hearing of these revisions and, therefore, these revisions are heard.

(2.) THE main contention of the plaintiffs in the plaint is that they are seeking relief in view of the prayer that (1) it be declared that mattings, Assi, Narpatti etc. , are finished goods and hence they are not forest produce within the provisions of law, and hence no transit pass or Money receipt is required for the transportation or transit or storing of the good. (2) that it be further declared that the transport of such goods is not a forest offence and hence the goods, or the vehicle by which the said goods is transported is not liable to be confiscated or forfeited under any provision of law. (3) that, the defendants be restrained from doing any act by which the said right of the plaintiff to do the business of said finished goods will be affected and further be restrained from seizing, forfeiting or confiscating the goods or the vehicle. (4) that the defendants also be restrained from obstructing the transport of goods on any ground like, it does not accompany with transit-pass or money receipt (5) that the costs of the suit be saddled on the defendants, and so on. With the above prayer this suit came to be filed and in the said suit application for interim order was also filed and the same was granted by the court as stated above.

(3.) MR. Jaiswal, learned A. G. P. , for the applicants contended that the bamboo splits are covered by the definition of section 2 (4) (a) (b) of the Indian Forest Act, which can be said to be a forest produce. He contended that previously there was no practice of directing the parties to produce either money receipt or the transit pass in view of the Circular existing since 1980. The Bamboo articles arc excluded from the forest produce as per Circular of the Government, Revenue and forests Department dated 9th October 1980 but subsequent thereto in the year 1986 Government policy has changed and Circular to the effect has been issued by the Government on 24th october 1986, wherein it has been clarified that narpattis, Chatais, petaras arc forest produce within the meaning of section 2 (4) (b) (i) read with section 2 (6) and 2 (7) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. In view of the Circular the parties were directed to produce the money receipts or the transit pass while making any transport of the forest produce. This was agitated by the businessmen who were dealing in the crude forest produce especially Chatai mattings and other various produce. It is pertinent to note that this forest produce was not included in the forest produce in view of the circular dated 26th May 1980 but the change has been effected in view of the change in Govt. policy and, therefore, all these articles were covered by the Circular dated 24th October 1986. Therefore, the department started pressing for the production of money receipts and transit pass. This has been agitated by the plaintiffs in the aforesaid prayer made by them in the plaint filed before the trial court at Bhandara in a civil suit which is pending. In the said civil suit an injunction was sought by the plaintiffs which was granted by the trial court restraining the State from seizing the various fresh produce like mattings in the absence of any production of money receipt or transit pass. This order was challenged by the State in appeal and the appellate court has also confirmed the order passed by the trial court on the basis of the decision of the Gujarat High Court reported in AIR 1987, Gujarat, 9 Fatesang v. State of Gujarat.