Case: State of Bihar vs Ranchi Timber Traders Association - AIR 1998 Pat 31, 1997 (45) BLJR 1598

1983 State Government of Bihar made rules for establishment of saw pits and establishment and regulation of depots excising powers conferred under sections 41,42 and 76. On the basis of these rules, a public notice was given by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Bihar to the effect that the rules required all owners of Saw-pits and depots to obtain licenses and as a consequence if any saw-pit or depot was found unlicensed, would attract action and penalties under the rules.
High Court has taken the view that regulation of the business of timber and forest produce at Saw-pits and depots, is not covered by either of the three sections above-mentioned.

Judgment:

- Powers conferred u/s 41(1) and 41(2) allows to make rules in order to regulate places for stoppage, reporting, examination and marking of timber or other forest produce..

- Regulating the activity of keeping a saw-pit or a depot is an activity to which the provisions of IFA, 1927 shall be attracted. Thus requiring all saw-pit holders and depot holders to obtain license falls within Section 76(d)[power to make rules to carry out the provisions of IFA] and power to regulate transit by land or water under section 41.

Case: Kisan Bhagwan Gawali vs State of Maharashtra - AIR 1990 Bom 343

The petitioners are graziers owning herds of cow and calves from Kathewad region of Gujarat. They were granted grazing licences for some period earlier, but the respondents (State of Maharashtra) off late took a policy decision not to grant such licences to Kathewadi grazier. The justification put forth was that some of them indulged in illegal grazing and created law and order problem.

Section 76 of IFA vests the rule making power with the State Government. It is contended on behalf of the State that only those who permanently reside in the neighborhood of grazing unit are qualified to get licence under Maharashtra Grazing Rules.
The crux of the matter is whether only because some of the persons belonging to a particular class were in the past guilty of breach of the Act, the class as a whole can be totally barred from consideration for grant of licence.

Judgment:

- The policy decision is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 301 of the Constitution.

- Similar validity of rules was questioned in the case of Lakshman vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, in which the part of Grazing rules of Madhya Pradesh which provided for levy of higher grazing rates and ceiling of 45 days was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

- Accidents of birth and geography cannot furnish the credential for discrimination and authorize prejudicial treatment in the matter of nature.

Case: Lakshman and Ors vs State of Madhya Pradesh

IWith the purported object of inhibiting the influx of cattle belonging to owners of neighbouring States passing through the State of Madhya Pradesh, the State government issued a notification under M.P.Grazing Rules 1979 prescribing the route to be followed by such foreign cattle while in transit. It also stipulated that the foreign cattle should leave the State within a period of 45 days after the issue of licence, that the owner should pay higher grazing charges.
The petitioners (Lakshman and Ors), nomad graziers of Gujarat and Rajashtan contended that the notification contravened with their fundamental rights under Article 14, 19(1)(e),(f) and (g) and also their right under Article 301 of the Constitution.

Judgment:

- There is no rational basis for distinction made between owners of cattle belonging to Madhya Pradesh and owners of cattle belonging to other states and the levy of prohibited grazing rates on the owners of foreign cattle.

- There was no justification in prescribing the ceiling of 45 days for foreign cattle.

- Accidents of birth and geography cannot furnish credentials for discrimination and authorize prejudicial treatment in matters of this nature.

- Under the Constitution, a citizen has the right to move freely throughout the territory of India. To whichever state a grazier may belong, he has the right to pass and repass through the State of Madhya Pradesh with his cattle in pursuit of his occupation.

- There is nothing wrong in prescribing the route along which the cattle had to pass while in transit because its object was to prevent cattle straying and causing indiscriminate damage to the forests.

This decision was upheld in Kisan Bhagwan Gawali vs State of Maharashtra.