ISHWAR DUTT Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the first prayer in the writ petition is to declare sections 4 and 7 of the Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1982 as arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional and against the principles of common law and natural justice and to quash the same, in the course of arguments, learned Counsel has stated that what all he wants in this case to direct the State Government to implement strictly the provisions of the said sections. However, he pressed for consideration the second prayer in the writ petition, in which he seeks to have the notification, which is filed as Annexure P -11 dated 3 -4 -1991 issued by the Government as void and to quash the same. The third prayer is also pressed by learned Counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) In so far as the first prayer is concerned in the form it is now presented to us in the course of arguments we are of the opinion that it is to be granted in view of the fact that the Act was passed in 1982, but the State Government has not chosen to adhere to the provisions of the Act strictly. No doubt, Advisory Committees were constituted in several Divisions in the year 1984 under different notifications for each Division. That constitution was only for the years 1984 -85 to 1986 -87. Thereafter, no Advisory Committee was constituted by the Government for each Division, as required by section 6 (I). But pursuant to the directions of this Court in C. W. P. No. 548 of 1994, Belt Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, an Advisory Committee was constituted for Nurpur Division So also an Advisory Committee was constituted pursuant to the directions given by this Court in C, W P No. 526 of 1989, Shiv Ram v. State and others, but that Committee was a State Level Committee and not a Committee for a Division, as contemplated by section 6 of the Act. Thus, it is clear that the State Government has not performed its statutory duties enjoined by section 6 of the said Act. In the circumstances, we direct the State Government to constitute Committees for each Division in which the forest produce is grown or found. Such constitution shall be effected before 30th January, 1997. No doubt, the section says that the State Government shall from time to time constitute such Advisory Committees, but the section does not restrict the power of the State Government to constitute such Committees for a period of three years only. It is open to the State Government to constitute the Committees for a longer period, so that there is no necessity to constitute Committees again and again after short intervals,

(3.) We also take notice of Rule 5 of the Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Rules, 1982. Rule 5 (2) provides for the composition of the Committee, According to the said Rule, the Divisional Forest Officer of the concerned Division, a representative of the Deputy Commissioner of the area, two Pradhans of the Gram Panchayats of the area due for felling under the 10 years felling programme and a representative of the agent shall be members of the Committee. As regards the agent, it is not now in dispute that the Forest Corporation is the agent which has to select its representative, who will be a member of the Committee. Thus, there will be no difficulty in constituting the Committees as such for the State Government. Considering the fact that the winter season has stepped in and the time at the disposal of the Government will be short, we are granting time, as prayed for by the learned Advocate General, till 30th January, 1997 for constitution of such Committees.