HARGOVIND NAGAICH Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though many a reliefs have been sought by the petitioner in the present writ petition; viz. (i) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to produce the entire record leading to the passing of the impugned advertisement passed by the respondent No. 2 DFO Burhanpur as contained in Annexure P/l, P/3 and P/4 respectively, (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner by issuance of writ of Mandamus and to further direct him to release the seized article forthwith (iii) that this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to command the respondent No. 2 by a writ of mandamus to allow the petitioner to continue his business/trade of Salai Gond, in view of the circulars contained in Annexure P/7 to P/9 above as also in view of section 2(b) and 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Jaiv Vividta Ka Sanrakshan Aur Poshriya Katai) Niyam,2005.

(2.) However, learned counsel for the petitioner as per his undertaking dated 18-3-2010 has confined his submission, questioning the validity of notification issued in succession since last four years under Rule 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Forest Produce (Conservation of Biodiversity and Sustainable Harvesting) Rules, 2005 (hereafter referred to as Rules of 2005).

(3.) Rules of 2005 are framed by the State Government in exercise of its power conferred by clause (b) of section 76 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 for the Conservation of Biodiversity (Flora and Fauna) and Sustainable Harvesting of Forest Produce from Government Forests.