SHANKAR TRADERS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein through its sole proprietor has prayed for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 24-1-1992 passed by the Conservator of Forest, Magadh Division, Patna (respondent No. 4) rejecting the application made by the petitioner for issue of transit permit for transporting Nepali Khair wood through the territory of the State of Bihar to other States, including Uttar Pradesh, and for a declaration that the Rules framed under the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 shall not be applicable to forest produce which is only in transit through the State of Bihar, not being a forest produce of the State of Bihar.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner is a proprietory concern registered by the Department of Commercial Taxes, Madhubani having its Registration No. MB 542(R). It is also registered under the Central Sales Tax (Regulation and Turn Over) Rule, 1957, and a certificate of registration has been issued to the petitioner-firm for dealing in Khair wood with Registration No. 359(C). The petitioner also claims registration under the Forest Department of Uttar Pradesh having Registration No. 41 for the year 1991, and is also registered under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 under Sections 41, 42, 51 and 78 reads with Forest Produce Transport Rules, 1978, whereby it was granted permit for regulating its trade of forest produce in Uttar Pradesh enabling it to carry its foreign forest produce to any part of Uttar Pradesh.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that it purchases forest produce in the State of Nepal and transports the same to different States, such as the State of Uttar Pradesh. It does not carry on any business in forest produce within the State of Bihar, nor does it carry on any business of transporting the same from one part of the State of Bihar to another. Whenever foreign forest produce is imported from Nepal to India, the officers of Land Custom Station check the same and after being satisfied about its genuineness, issue Bill of Entry evidencing import of goods inside the territory of India. By notifications (Annexures 1 and 2) issued by the Government of India, custom duty on Khair wood imported from Nepal was lifted and, therefore, no custom duty is payable on Khair wood imported from Nepal. The petitioner purchases Khair wood from various Nepali citizens within the territory of Nepal, and thereafter the wood purchased passes through the custom barrier and is checked by the officers of the Land Custom Station at Jayangar, which the under the Government of India. After verification of the wood and after considering all other relevant aspects of the matter, the Bill of Entry is issued by the custom authorities evidencing the fact that Khair wood of Nepali origin has been imported from Nepal. Accordingly, the petitioner purchased Khair wood from local citizens in Nepal and applied for grant of transit permit to the State authorities. Officials of the Forest Department passed no order on the application filed by the petitioner nor did they issue the transit permit prayed for, compelling the petitioner to file a writ petition before this Court being C.W.J.C. No. 4955 of 1991 for a direction to the respondents to issue transit permit to the petitioner. While the writ petition was pending, respondent No. 4 rejected the application of the petitioner for issuing transit permit, whereafter the petitioner filed an amendment application challenging the said order of refusal. By order dated 18-12-1991 the writ petition was disposed of by an order, which is Annexure-8 to the writ petition. It appears from the aforesaid order of this Court that counsel for the State stated that the order refusing to transit permit was passed in absence of any document to show the lawful entry of the wood into India. It was fairly stated that in case the petitioner was in possession of the relevant documents, he should produce the same before the authorities so that the documents may be examined and appropriate orders passed. Counsel for the petitioner stated that he had produced the relevant document before the authorities earlier, but he was willing to produce the same again. In these circumstances, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to produce relevant documents on 9-1-1992 before respondent No. 4, who was directed to examine the matter and pass an appropriate order within two weeks thereafter. The impugned order of rejection, which was Annexure-10 in that writ petition, was quashed. The case of the petitioner is that on 9-1-1992 he produced before respondent No. 4 copies of Bills of Entry issued by the custom authorities. On being so directed, he also produced the original documents on 9th January 1992, whereafter, the impugned order (Annexure-10) has been passed on 24-1-1992. From the impugned order it appears that the application for grant of transit permit has been rejected on the ground that though the petitioner had produced the original Bills of Entry, he did not produce any other document. The petitioner had failed to produce any document relating to the purchase of Khair wood within the territory of Nepal, nor had he produced any valid licence from the Nepal authorities. It was, therefore, found that the Khair wood brought by the petitioner from Nepal in respect of which transit permit was prayed for, had not been legally imported from Nepal, since no transit permit issued by the Nepal authorities had been produced. In view of these facts, the application filed by the petitioner for grant of transit permit was refused.It would thus appear from the impugned order (Annexure-10) that it is not disputed that the Khair wood was brought from Nepal. It is not the case of the State of Bihar that the Khair wood is of Indian origin, or that the Bills of Entry issued by the custom authorities have been procured by misrepresentation of facts, or by preparation of fraud. The genuineness of Bills of Entry is also not challenged.