SUNIL SUTRADHAR Vs. KEMKANTA TALUKDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue raised in this writ appeal is whether wooden frames for window and ventilator are "forest produce" within the meaning of Section 3(4) of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, which the learned Single Judge had held to be so, in the judgment and order dated 01.02.2008 in W.P. (C) No. 1853 of 2007, which is under challenge in present proceeding. The background facts of the present case as relevant may be stated as follows.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the decision of the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, the Authorised Forest Officer preferred a writ petition before this Court which was registered as W.P. (C) No. 1853 of 2007, contending, inter-alia, that the definition of 'forest produce' as given under section 3(4)(a) of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 includes 'timber', and 'timber' has been also defined under section 3(3) of the said Regulation to mean 'trees' also, when they have felled or have been felled or 'all wood', whether cut out or fashioned or hollowed out for any purpose. According to the Authorised Forest Officer, since the wooden frames for window and ventilator were cut or fashioned out of wood for the purpose of window or ventilation frame, the same are to be treated as "forest produce". The learned Single Judge, allowed the writ petition by distinguishing the decision of the Supreme Court in Suresh Lohiya Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1996 10 SCC 397 which was relied upon by the appellants and observed as follows:-

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.