WOOD WORK HANDICRAFT ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioner -Association has questioned the amendments made in Rules 6 and 7 of the Rajasthan Forest Produce (Establishment & Regulation of Saw Mills) Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1983"). By amending Rule 6, the application fee for permit/license, which was earlier Rs. 25/ -, has been revised to Rs. 250/ -; fee for grant of permit/license, which was earlier Rs. 250/ -, has been revised to Rs. 2500/ - and the security deposit for grant of license, which was earlier Rs. 500/ -, has been revised to Rs. 5000/ -. Earlier there was no time limit prescribed for the validity of the license and now by inserting new sub -rule (iv) in Rule 7 of the Rules of 1983, the period of license has been limited to five years and thereafter, the license has to be renewed for every subsequent five years and application has to be made three months before the expiry of period of license. The licensee shall have to pay license fee afresh. It is averred in the petition that vide order dated 30.10.2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 202/95 T.N. Godavaraman V/s Union of India & Ors., the Apex Court directed that no State or Union Territory shall permit any unlicensed saw mills to operate and closure of such unlicensed saw mills was ordered. Even operation of small saw machines, which were unlicensed, was stopped by the respondents. Thereafter, considering the difficulties of workers operating small saw machines, a representation was submitted on behalf of the State Government before the Central Empowered Committee constituted by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case and on the recommendation of the Central Empowered Committee, the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 41 and 42 read with Section 76 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act No. XIII of 1953) (hereinafter referred to as "the Forest Act"), has made amendment in the Rules of 1983 by way of making Rajasthan Forest Produce (Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills) (Amendment) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the amended Rules of 2005") and the amendment was notified vide notification dated 4.2.2006. The term 'saw mill' was extended to include 'wood handicraft saw mill' and accordingly, amendment was made in Rule 2 of the Rules of 1983. However, the application fee for license & permit, fee for grant of license & permit and the security deposit for grant of license were not altered. No time limit for validity of the license was prescribed. Once the license was granted, it was to continue till indefinite period. There was provision for one time license fee. Accordingly, the members of the petitioner -Association obtained the licenses.

(2.) IT is further averred in the petition that in the Rules of 1983, amendments were again made by the State Government by way of making the Rajasthan Forest Produce (Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills) (Amendment) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2008") and the same was notified vide notification dated 13.1.2010 contained in Annexure 9 to the petition. Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules of 1983 have been amended in the aforesaid manner enhancing application fee for permit & license, fee for grant of permit & license and the security deposit for grant of license and the period of license has also been curtailed to five years and thereafter, renewal for every subsequent five years. Pursuant to the amendments made in Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules of 1983, which were notified in 2010 vide notification AnnEx. 9, advertisement dated 4.6.2010 has been published in the newspaper directing that licenses of saw mills have to be renewed so as to bring them in consonance with the amended Rules and licensees were asked to deposit application fee, fee for grant of license & permit and security deposit for grant of license as per amended Rules. The petitioner -Association submitted representation, but nothing was done. Hence, the writ petition has been preferred.

(3.) IN the return filed by the respondents, it is contended that the action taken is as per Forest Act and the Rules of 1983; the Central Empowered Committee has been consulted; there is no restriction put on the right of the members of the petitioner -Association to carry on their trade or business by amending the rules vide notification AnnEx. 9 dated 13.1.2010; revision of application fee, fee for grant of license and permit and security deposit for grant of license cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal in any manner; as per policy, license has to be renewed, as such, amendment has rightly been made for renewal of the license; there is no illegality in the advertisement dated 4.6.2010 and the same has been issued to give effect to the amended Rules; all licensees were required to make application for renewal of licenses so as to bring them in tune with the amendments made in the Rules of 1983; there is no violation of any fundamental right; members of the petitioner -Association have not been restrained from carrying out occupation, trade or business; by directing renewal it cannot be said that any restriction has been put on the rights to carry on trade or business; amendments have been made in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 41 & 42 read with section 76 of the Forest Act; revision of fee cannot in any manner be said to be illegal or arbitrary.