Mulibashhasta Shilpa Samabaya Samity Ltd. and Another vs State of Assam and Others

D. Biswas, J.—Heard Mr. B.C. Das, learned senior counsel for the Petitioners. Also heard Mr. DK Das, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 5 as well as Mr. B. Goswami, learned Counsel for the State Respondents.

This petition has been filed by the members of the Petitioner Society for declaring that the finished products made out of bamboo and canes including the mats, chati, bethi etc. are not ''forest produce'' as defined in the Assam Forest Regulation 1891 and consequently, the Petitioners are not required to obtain transit passes for transportation of the said finished products.

In support of the above-contention Mr. B.C. Das, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the provisions inserted by the amendment in 1995 in the Assam Forest Regulation 1891 have been considered by the Government and thereafter, a notification was issued on 4th May, 1992 (Annexure-B) informing all concerned that for transportation of finished products including Beti and Chati no transit pass will be required. This order was passed in cancellation of the earlier order dated 24th March, 1992.

The question for adjudication before this Court is whether the finished products like beti and chati could be treated as ''forest produce'' for the purpose of transit pass.

Obviously, the Government notification dated 4th may, 1992 which has been in force holds the field. However, Mr. B. Goswami, learned Counsel for the State Respondents submitted that the letter written on 4th May, 1992 cannot have any effect in suppression of the provisions of Section 3 of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 as amended in 1995 and, therefore, transit passes for movement of Beti and Chati is a must. The learned Counsel further submits that transit passes are insisted upon in all the districts of Assam except Karimganj District. In support of his contention Mr. Goswami has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Suresh Lohiya Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, and argued that the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the said judgment is determinative of the issue before this Court so far the bamboo mat is concerned. In para 8 of the judgment the Supreme Court held as follows:

We may also state that according to us the view taken by the Gujarat High Court in Fatesang case is correct, because though bamboo as a whole is forest produce, if a product, commercially new and distinct, known to the business community as totally different is brought into existence by human labour, such an article and product would cease to be a forest produce. The definition of this expression leaves nothing to doubt that it would not take within its fold an article or thing which is totally different from forest produce having a distinct character. May it be stated that where a word or an expression is defined by the legislature, Courts have to took to that definition; the general understanding of it cannot be determinative. So, what has been stated in Stroud''s Judicial Dictionary regarding a ''Produce'' cannot be decisive. Therefore, where a product from bamboo is commercially different from it and in common parlance taken as a distinct product, the same would not be encompassed within the expression "forest produce" as defined in Section 2(4) of the Act, despite it being inclusive in nature. That bamboo mat is taken as a product distinct from bamboo in the commercial world, has not been disputed before us, and rightly.

The ratio of the Supreme Court available in para 8 of the judgment quoted above and the provisions of Section 3 of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 as amended in 1995 would show that Beti and Chati are nothing but split form of bamboo which is capable of being transformed without any skill and, therefore, Beti and Chati cannot be treated as finished products for the purpose of exemption from requirement of transit pass. This conclusion appears to be irresistible in the given context.

Yet, in Anr. case namely, Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/s. Contreads Private Limited and others, it has been held that use of Latex in forest produce will not change its character to take it out of the definition of forest produce. This shows that unless there is a change in substance and character, the raw material would remain the same. It, therefore, appears that Beti and Chati are not finished products and remain forest produce even after transformation at the hands of non-skilled workers. On this context, it is considered necessary that the Government decision communicated vide letter dated 4th May, 1992 needs re-consideration. Hence, I propose that the matter be referred to the State Government for re-consideration and for passing appropriate orders declaring ''Beti'' and ''Chati'' as forest produce within the meaning of the Assam Forest Regulating, 1891, as amended in 1995.

The petition accordingly stands disposed of. A Copy of this judgment be furnished to the learned State Counsel for necessary action.