JAGAN NATH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition two questions are raised. The first question relates to the validity of section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1982. According to the petitioners it is ultra vires and therefore, invalid. In other words the petitioner contends that the Legislature has no competence to enact section 4 of the Act. It is also contended by the petitioner of the Legislature is in error in defining the Forest produce in such a way as to include the trees which are set out in the Schedule which are according to the petitioners only agricultural produce and not Forest produce as such.

(2.) Neither of the contentions is sustainable We find that in List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution forests are found in Entry 17 -A Thus, it is a concurrent subject and it is open to the State Legislature also to enact legislation subject to the provisions of Articles 245 to 255. Hence the contention that it is ultra vires the powers of the State Legislation has to fail. The second part of the contention that the definition is erroneous cannot be considered at all once the competence of Legislature is upheld. It is open to the Legislature to prescribe such trees as would fall under the expression Forest produce. The definition as found in section 2(d) it reads as follows : -~ " Forest Produce means trees of any of the species standing, felled or otherwise fashioned, specified in the Schedule annexed to this Act and any other produce declared as such by the State Government from time to time by a notification published in the official Gazette -

(3.) It is very clear from clause (6) (ii) that the State entitled to introduce a monopoly in the trade, business Industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise. Hence the contention has to fail..