Appellants: M. Prabhakar Reddy Vs. Respondent: State of A.P. and Anr. AIR2006AP386, 2006(5)ALD161 :Decided On: 14.06.2006

SA No. 625 of 1994

Hon'ble Judges:

V.V.S. Rao, J.

Subject: Environment

Acts/Rules/Orders:
Andhra Pradesh Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970 - Rules 3, 4 and 5; Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 - Sections 2, 20, 29 and 68

Disposition:
Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT

V.V.S. Rao, J.

1. The appellant (hereinafter called, the plaintiff) filed suit being O.S. No. 72 of 1988 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Warangal, for recovery of an amount of Rs. 20,295/- (Rupees twenty thousand two hundred and ninety five only) with interest by declaring that the search, seizure and collection of compounding fee of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) is illegal. In his plaint, he alleged that he purchased teak wood in two lots, got it sawn into sizes at two different saw mills and as he could not get permit, kept the cut teak wood at Ladella village with his cousin till 10-2-1988. When he was transporting the teak, the forest officials stopped the bullock carts, registered a case being P.O.R.No. 79/B/87-88 W/N, dated 20-2-1988, and imposed compounding fee. As he was threatened with arrest, he paid the compounding fee. He alleged that the seizure and collection of compounding fee is illegal and therefore, he is entitled to such declaration and refund.

2. The respondents (hereinafter called, the defendants) denied the allegations and asserted that unless and until a transit permit is obtained under Andhra Pradesh Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970 (Transit Rules, for brevity), the timber cannot be transported and that the plaintiff paid the compounding fee on his own volition.

3. Based on the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed four issues. The plaintiff examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and marked Exs. A1 to A6, whereas defendants examined D.W.I and marked Exs. B1 to B7. After considering the evidence and the relevant provisions of Transit Rules, the trial Court came to the conclusion that when a person transports sawn teak wood, no transit permit is required and therefore, the seizure and collection of compounding fee is illegal. Therefore, the trial Court decreed the suit. The appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court, aggrieved by which, the present second appeal is filed,

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that when sawn teak wood is transported within the State, no transit permit is required and therefore, even if the petitioner was transporting the teak wood without permit, the second respondent could not have seized the teak and could not have collected the compounding fee. According to the learned Counsel, the action of the second respondent in imposing compounding fee is ex facie illegal and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to declaration of title and refund of the amount, which he paid under coercion. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader relies upon Rules 3 and 4 of the Transit Rules and submits that whether or not the timber is sawn into sizes, as and when the same is moved within the State or into the State, the same has to be accompanied by a permit issued under Rule 5 of the Transit Rules and therefore, the seizure of the wood is not illegal. Secondly, he submits that imposition of Rs. 20,000/- as compounding fee is legal and there is no frivolous attitude on the part of the second respondent.

5. The plaintiff admitted that he has been transporting the timber sawn into sizes without a permit. Indeed in the plaint itself, it was averred that as he could not get transit permit, he stored the sawn teak wood at the house of his cousin at Ladella village. The question, therefore, is whether a permit is required for moving the timber from one place to another ?

6. The term forest produce is defined in Section 2(g) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (Forest Act, for brevity) as under.

(g) forest produce includes—

(1) The following whether found in, or brought from a forest or not, that is to say timber, bamboos, charcoal, rubber, cacutchour, catechu, wood-oil, resin, natural varnish bark, lac, mahua flowers, mahua seeds, myrobalans, tumki leaves, rousa grass, rauwolfia serpentina, adda leaves;

(2) The following when found in, or brought from a forest, that is to say—

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

(ii) plants not being trees (including grass, creepers, reeds and moss) and all parts or produce or such plants;

(iii) wild animals, wild birds, skins, tusks, horns, bones, silk, cocoons, honey, wax, and all other parts or produce of animal and birds;

(iv) peat, surface soil, rock and minerals (including lime stone and laterite) mineral oil and all products of mines or quarries; and

(3) Such other produce as may be prescribed;

7. Section 2(q) of the Forest Act defines timber to include trees fallen or fell, and all wood, cut up or sawn. Section 20 of the Forest Act prohibits any person from moving any forest produce. Section 29 of the Forest Act empowers the State Government to make Rules to regulate the transit and possession of timber and other forest produce. In exercise of this power as well as power conferred under Section 68 of the Forest Act, the Government has promulgated the Transit Rules. Rule 5 of the Transit Rules empowers the Divisional Forest Officer or an Officer duly authorized by him to issue a permit in respect of forest produce to be removed from the forest area or Government timber depots. Rules 3 and 4 of the Transit Rules require permit for transporting forest produce or timber. Those Rules reads as under.

3. No forest produce shall be moved into or from or within the State by land or water, unless such produce is accompanied by a permit therefor issued under Rule 5 and produced for check immediately only demand :

Provided that where the forest produce is imported into the State from any other State it is enough if such produce is accompanied by a permit issued by the Government of the State from where such produce is imported and the said permit shall be valid only for the transport of such produce and such quantity to the destination specified therein.

4. Timber exceeding 25 cms in girth at its thickest part and one meter in length, except timber sawn into sizes shall not be moved into or from or within the State of Andhra Pradesh, unless such timber bears a distinguishable Government transit mark of such description as mentioned in the permit authorizing the transit thereof accompanying the said timber.

8. Rule 3 of the Transit Rules prohibits movement of forest produce within the State, unless such produce is accompanied by a permit, whereas Rule 4 of the Transit Rules requires the timber exceeding 25 cms in girth to bear a distinguishable transit mark as mentioned in the permit before it is moved. This, however, excludes timbers sawn into sizes from bearing the distinguishable number. As seen from the definitions of the terms forest produce and timber, forest produce includes trees and all other parts of the trees, whereas the timber means the trees fallen or fell. Therefore, timber is also forest produce and is a necessary corollary when Rule 3 of the Transit Rules prohibits movement of the forest produce within the State, it is not possible to accept any submission that the Rule 3 of the Transit Rules excludes the sawn timber. On a true interpretation of Rule 4 of the Transit Rules, it becomes clear that the limited exemption given to sawn timber is that while in movement, sawn timber need not contain distinguishable mark as described in the permit.

9. The learned trial Judge fell in error while interpreting Rule 4 of the Transit Rules in coming to the conclusion that the sawn timber does not require a permit. The appellate Court correctly interpreted and came to the conclusion that even sawn timber requires a permit. Insofar as compounding fee of Rs. 20,000/- is concerned, the appellate Court came to a correct conclusion. The allegations of coercion and threat were disbelieved by the trial Court and the plaintiff did not file any appeal.

10. For the above reasons, the second appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.