Tuni Merchants Association and others vs The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Hyderabad and others

P. Venkata Rama Reddy, J.—This writ petition is filed by merchants of Tuni, East Godavari District, who deal in cashew-nuts. They question the action of the forest officials in insisting upon transport permits for movement of cashew-nuts purchased by the petitioners in the areas surrounding Narsipatnam, K. D. Peta, Anaka-palli and Bhimunipatnam. The petitioners allege that the 3rd respondent and his subordinates are not allowing the transport of cashew-nuts purchased by them from the ryots owning private lands and from market yards. However, as far as the movement from market yard is concerned, no specific relief has been sought for and no arguments have been addressed to us in this behalf.

It is the contention of the petitioners that cashew or cashew-nuts are not ''forest produce'' within the meaning of S. 2(ii)(g) of A.P. Forest Act unless the cashew-nuts are obtained from the cashew-trees grown in the forest area. Referring to sub-clause (2) of clause (g) which reads:

"The following when found in, or brought from a forest, that is to say -

(i) trees, such leaves, flowers and fruits as may be prescribed and all other parts or produce not hereinbefore mentioned of trees";

it is pointed out that cashew-nuts are not one of the prescribed items and therefore it does not fall even under sub-clause 2(i). If so, it is contended that no transit permits are required to be taken under the Rules viz. A. P. Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970.

In the counter-affidavit filed, while contending that cashew-nuts fall within the ambit of the inclusive definition of ''forest produce'', it is submitted that the transit permits are necessary to arrest the smuggling of cashew-nuts from the Government plantations which are located very near to the cashew ''topes'' of the private owners. It is stated that the Forest Department has raised cashew plantations around Narsipatnam and its surrounding villages and there is a possibility of smuggling or unauthorised procurement of cashew-nuts from the said plantations in the guise of purchase from private plantations.

It is true that the definition of ''forest produce'' is an inclusive one and is, therefore, not exhaustive. In the first sub-clause, certain items viz. timber, bamboo, charcoal, mahua flowers etc. whether found in or brought from a forest or not come under ''forest produce''. But, cashew-nuts is not one of the items specified in sub-clause (1). Coming to sub-clause (2), as already noted, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner cashew-nuts are not one of the items of prescribed forest produce and, therefore, they do not even come under sub-clause (2). Even assuming that the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission, there can be no doubt that cashew-nut obtained from the cashew plantations grown in the forest area is forest produce. It does not require much of argument to say that forest produce includes any and every type of produce obtained from the plantations or trees grown in the forest area. This proposition has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioners purchased cashew-nuts directly from the ryots and therefore there is no scope to treat them as ''forest produce'' even as per the inclusive definition. There is force in the contention of the learned counsel. Cashew-nuts by themselves are not understood as forest produce in popular or commercial parlance. It is not as if cashew, trees are grown only in the forest. Even from botanical point of view, it is difficult to say that cashew-nuts have the inherent or peculiar characteristics of being classified as ''forest produce''.

When once cashew-nuts obtained from the cashew plantations on private lands'' in excluded from the definition of ''forest produce'' either specific or inclusive, the Forest Department cannot insist on permits being obtained for transporting the cashew-nuts obtained from the private lands to the petitioners" Business places. The possibility of clandestine or unauthorised removal of cashew-nuts from the plantations raised by the Forest Department is not a ground to insist on transit permits as it is common ground that transit permits are required for the movement of ''forest produce'', but not other produce. Moreover, the Forest Department is not powerless to check the unauthorised removal or procurement of cashew-nuts from the forest areas. If the concerned forest officials form a reasonable belief that the cashew-nuts are being transported or smuggled from the forests but not from private ''topes'', it is always open to them to take appropriate action under the provisions of A. P. Forest Act including the exercise of power of seizure of goods in appropriate cases.

We may refer to the circular dt. 21-3-1990 issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests on the representations made by Tuni Merchants Association. In that circular it is observed that the transit permits cannot be insisted when the cashew-nuts are transported from the field of the farmer to the depot or market-yard.

In view of the above discussion, a writ will be issued that the 3rd respondent and his subordinates shall not insist on transport or transit permits for the movement of cashew-nuts purchased by the petitioners from the private cashew plantations of the ryots and being transported to petitioners'' places of business.

The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.

Petition allowed.