1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16-9-1994 passed by a learned single Judge in Civil Rule No. 1146 of 1994.
2. The facts of this case may briefly be stated as follows:--
On 15-2-1994 Garo Hills District Council (GDC) under Kharkutta Range Office put on auction sale Sal and Teak logs which were purchased by one Borlindra Marak -- a contractor. After the purchase, the Range Officer under the Garo Hills District Council of the State of Meghalaya issued various transit passes for transportation of the said logs. The present appellant had purchased the aforesaid logs and as per usual practice, the transit passes issued to said Borlindra Marak were also endorsed in favour of the appellant. On 9-3-1994 the appellant loaded the logs to cross the gate at Adokguri (Assam--Meghalaya border), but the 4th respondent -- Beat Officer, Rangulee Range, Adokguri Beat, Goalpara did not allow to pass the gate on the plea that the 2nd respondent -- D.F.O. had directed him not to allow transportation of timbers through the gate. The appellant approached the 2nd respondent for a copy of such order putting restriction. But it was denied saying that it was a confidential order. Situated thus, the appellant approached this Court by filing a Writ Application (Civil Rule No. 1146/94) praying, inter alia, for issuance of appropriate writ or direction.
3. Before the learned single Judge the appellant-petitioner contended that as he had purchased the logs from said Borlindra Marak and thereafter the vendor having endorsed the transit passes indicating the transfer, the respondents had no jurisdiction to restrict or prohibit free trade, commerce and intercourse under the law. As the transit passes were valid documents, restriction put by the respondents was illegal and without authority. The learned single Judge after hearing the counsel for the appellant disposed of the said Civil Rule holding, inter alia, that the purchaser Borlindra Marak had no right to sell the transit passes inasmuch as such transit passes cannot be subjected to sale. Therefore, the question of transferring the transit passes in favour of the appellant did not arise at all under the law. As there was no other document, the authority rightly denied the transportation of the aforesaid logs. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned single Judge the appellant has preferred this appeal.
4. We heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B.C. Das, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing on behalf of the respondents.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the logs being movable property, the appellant having purchased the said logs and the transit passes issued to his vendor, namely, Borlindra Marak could be validly transferred by making an endorsement. According to the learned counsel, learned single Judge was wrong in holding that the transit passes could not be subjected to transfer. Mr. Ahmed further contended that the respondents had no jurisdiction to restrict or prevent the appellant from free trade, commerce and intercourse in the absence of any law passed by the Parliament or the Legislature and this aspect of the matter was totally overlocked by the learned single Judge. Mr. Das, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocates-oil the other hand, submitted that the forest produce could not be treated like other, goods which could be usually transported from one place to another. Forest produce are precious property and, therefore, certain restrictions were required to be imposed in respect of movement of the forest produce like timber, logs, etc.
6. On the rival contentions of the parties it is to be seen whether the impugned judgment can sustain in law. u/s 40 of Chapter VI of Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 the State Government is empowered to make rules to regulate the transit of any forest produce. Such rules may, among other matter, prescribe the routes by which alone forest produce may be imported into, exported from or moved within the territories to which that Regulation extends, to prohibit the import, export, collection or moving of forest produce without a pass from an officer authorised to issue the same, or otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of such pass. In pursuance of Sections 40 and 41 the Government has made rules to regulate the transit of forest produce by land and water. Under Rule 2(a)(i), no forest produce can be removed unless covered by a pass which shall be in the form of a permit issued by a duly authorised Forest Officer under the rules relating to the Unclassed State Forests or reserved forests, allowing the holder to remove forest produce from a specified locality. These rules are made for the protection of the forest produce so that undesirable persons may not take away the forest produce which may be detrimental to the interest of the State. The permits are issued not only on the ground that a person owns the timber/log. The authority before issuing the permit is to see that the persons to whom the transit passes are issued are genuine persons and they are not likely to do mischief regarding the forest produce and for that purpose transit passes are necessary to transport forest produce like timber, logs, etc. from one place to another. Therefore, it cannot be said that a person having sold the forest produce can also transfer the transit passes to the purchaser. Even after transfer of forest produce it is for the authority to see whether the transit passes should be granted to the transferee. Normally if there is nothing against the transferee, the transit passes may be issued. But before that the authority must be satisfied as aforesaid and after being satisfied the transit passes may be Issued.
7. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the transit passes issued in the name of one person shall automatically stand transferred with the sale of the forest produce. Therefore, in our opinion, the learned single Judge was right in holding that the transit passes are not transferable. We, therefore, are in agreement with the view expressed by the learned single Judge in this regard. Accordingly, we find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.
