KANIRAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The material facts giving rise to this petition briefly are as follows:-- The petitioners are residents of District Mandsaur in the State of Madhya Pradesh and carry on the business of breeding and selling camels, which business, according to the petitioners, is their only source of livelihood. The petitioners were being granted licences for grazing their camels in the forest in accordance with the Madhya Pradesh Grazing Rules, 1979, framed by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 76 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. For the year 1982, the applications of the petitioners for grant of grazing licences were, however, not accepted by the respondents on the ground that there was an order issued by the State Government discontinuing the practice of granting grazing licences in the current year. The petitioners contend that the respondents have no authority to impose a total ban on grazing of camels in the forest and such ban, according to the petitioners, has adversely affected their right to carry on business inasmuch as their camels are deprived of their food and face extinction. The petitioners have, therefore, prayed that the order passed by the State Government imposing a total ban on grant of licences to the petitioners for grazing their camels in the District of Mandsaur be quashed and the respondents be directed to accept the applications of the petitioners for grant of licence for grazing camels in the forest of District Mandsaur and decide their applications in accordance with law.

(3.) Shri Kokje, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the State Government had no powers to pass an order imposing a total ban on grazing of camels in the Government forest in the District of Mandsaur and the respondents were bound to consider the applications submitted by the petitioners for grant of grazing licences and dispose of those applications in accordance with law. It was urged that such a total ban amounted to unreasonable restriction on the right of the petitioners to carry on their business.