HANUMAN VITAMIN FOODS LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioner calls in question the section of the State in granting long term lease of mango kernel along with other minor forest produce in favour of opposite party No. 4, a joint sector company under IPICOL with a prayer to quash the same on the ground that mango kernel is not a forest produce under the Forest law of the State and praying for a declaration that the petitioner has a right to collect mango kernel throughout the State without any let and hindrance and without payment of any royalty and for ancillary reliefs.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details and verbose reproduction, the facts of the case, and events leading to filing of the present writ petition, most of which are undisputed, may be stated thus : The petitioner, a private company with head office in Bombay, is engaged amongst other things in collection of mango kernels in Orissa as well as other States during last several years and in manufacturing solvent extract mostly for foreign export. The State Government on the recommendation of a High Court Level Committee decided on 11-4-1985 to grant lease of several items of minor forest produce including mango kernel to a joint venture company that would be floated by IPICOL, and pursuant to the aforesaid policy decision the State Government granted long term lease of 32 items of forest produce including mango kernel, 29 items to opposite party No. 4 and the rest of the items to the T.D.C.C. Orissa. With the change of Government, the lease was cancelled for a certain period from 2-5-1990, and again with the present Government, coming to power, the lease for a period of ten years in favour of opposite party No. 4 was restored/renewed sometime on 14-12-1990. The lease is still continuing, and opposite party No. 4 has been collecting 29 items of minor forest produce including mango kernel in the State of Orissa. The grievance of the petitioner in a nutshell is that mango kernel is not a forest produce in terms of the provisions of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act'), and as such it is not legally permissible to be leased out. It is also averred that for the aforesaid reason the State Government cannot have any control over this produce in the matter of collection. It cannot put any restriction on those engaged in collection, nor can it legally collect royalty for such collection. It is further averred that over a period of last 15 to 20 years, petitioner was collecting mango kernel throughout the State as also in several other States without any restriction, and the impugned act of the State Government in granting long term lease to opposite parry No. 4 has adversely affected the business of the petitioner, and besides such restriction on the part of the State Government is hit by Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution. On these averments the petitioner has sought for a declaration that mango kernal is not a forest produce, that the settlement on long term basis in favour of opposite party No. 4 by the State Government is illegal and without jurisdiction. It has also sought for a further declaration that the petitioner has a right to collect and transport from the entire State without any restriction and without any payment of royalty and without having any necessity for TT permit.

(3.) The State opposite party No. 1 and its functionaries, opposite parties 2 and 3 have not filed any reply or counter to the writ petition. It is only opposite party No. 4 who has stoutly contested the claim of the petitioner and has filed the counter. The contention of opposite party No. 4 in substance is that pursuant to the policy decision of the State Government the joint venture Company with IPICOL was floated and incorporated under the Companies Act on 6-12-1989. The idea of giving long term lease of minor forest produce is to generate employment in the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe communities living in the interiors of the State and for promoting the economic upliftment of the State. It is averred by opposite party No. 4 that pursuant to the decision of the State Government the IPICOL invited partners for forest products joint venture Project, and 18 entrepreneurs applied for the same and opposite party No. 4 was eventually selected to form the joint venture undertaking with the IPICOL. It has not disputed that initially the lease was granted pursuant to the decision of the High Court level committee on 6-9-1989, and that for a short spell of time the lease was cancelled, and that again with the change of Government the lease has been renewed and resusticated to life. It is further asserted by opposite party No. 4 that mango kernel being a part of produce of the trees of the forest are forest produce so long as they are found in or brought from the forest. It is contended that the interest of petitioner is not prejudicially affected by grant of long term lease for collection of mango kernel by opposite party No. 4, inasmuch as the petitioner is at liberty to collect mango kernels from such of the areas which are not covered by forest, and the petitioner may also procure mango kernel from opposite party No. 4 and from other agencies who collect mango kernel.