LAWS(APH)-2001-8-95

VENKATESWARA TIMBER DEPOT Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On August 10, 2001
VENKATESWARA TIMBER DEPT. Appellant
V/S
GOVT.OF A.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The vires of sub-rule (9) of Rule 5 of A. P. Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970 inserted by G.O.Ms. No. 87, Environment, Forests, Science and Technology (For III) dated 5-7-1999 is questioned in these Writ Petitions.

(2.) The petitioners herein are retail timber merchants engaged in the trade of purchase of timber and conduct of retail sale of timber in Rangareddy and Hyderabad districts. The Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of the power conferred under Section 68 of A.P. Forest Act, 1967 (for short the Act) has framed rules known as A.P. Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970 (for short the Rules). Rule 5 of the said rule provides for issuance of a permit in respect of forest produce to be removed from forest or Government Timber Depots in Form I and Form II. By reason of the amendment issued in G.O.Ms. No. 87 dated 5-7-1999, sub-rule (9) and (10) were inserted in Rule 5 purporting to require that the saw mill owner or depot owner trading in Municipalities and Municipal Corporation areas where the saw mills or depots are situated should issue delivery challan in Form No. IV along with the forest produce sold and Form IV should be maintained for certification of the Forest Officers.

(3.) Mr. Venkataramana, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submit that the restriction which is sought to be imposed on the depot owners is being restricted to the timber deposits situate in municipal and municipal corporations and the same is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. No reasonable purpose, submits the learned counsel, would be achieved by insertion of the said provision. In any event, contends the learned counsel, the said restriction is wholly unworkable and impracticable and thus void for uncertainty. According to the learned counsel, if such restriction had been issued for the purpose of curbing of illegal transit of the forest produce, even the timber depots situated in Gram Panchayats should have also been put to such restriction. Some of the municipalities or municipal corporations may be nearer to forest but many of the municipalties are far away from forest and thus it is not at all understandable as to how sub-rule (9) of Rule 5 may be made applicable to the saw-mill situated within the municipalities or municipal corporations. Timber, according to the learned counsel, is not a controlled item.