The State Government, on the other hand, claimed that the restrictions against transport of the leaves were justified under s. 5 and the rules and were valid.
The appellants claimed a writ in the nature of mandamus for setting aside the said orders dated June 4, 1965 and October 12, 1965 and also for striking down s. 5 if it was companystrued as prohibiting, except under permit, movement of the said leaves from their warehouses to the branches and from thence, to the sattedars and the mazdoors.
The result was that the appellants were required to obtain permits for moving the tendu leaves from their branch offices to the sattedars.
On June 4, 1965, the Divisional Forest Officer issued an order which forbade altogether movement of old tendu leaves and as regards new leaves provided that their movement from one village to another had to be companyered by a permit.
In the companyrse of their business the appellants transport the said leaves first from the said units to their warehouses, from there to their branches and thereafter distribute them and tobacco to their sattedars, who are independent companytractors, and who in their turn distribute the said leaves and tobacco to various mazdoors living in different villages for rolling the bidis.
Rule 9 of the said rules provided for an application for a transport permit in form M and the issuance of such permit in form N. The appellants accordingly applied for and obtained permits authorising them to transport tendu leaves purchased by them from the various forest units to their godowns situate outside those units.
The Act received the Presidents assent on November 23, 1964 and was brought into force on November 28, 1964.
The appellants thereafter filed the said writ petition in the High Court claiming that under s. 5 and the said rules they were required to obtain permits only when moving the leaves purchased by them from units where they were grown to their warehouses and that once they were so moved to the warehouses there companyld be numberrestriction in their further movement from the warehouses to their branches and from there to their sattedars and the mazdoors.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 22, 1966 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
The appellants thereupon made a representation to the Divisional Forest Officer mentioning the several difficulties which would result from the Said order and the said officer, by his order dated June 8, 1965, in partial modification of his said order, permitted branch managers of bidi manufacturing firms themselves to issue transport permits to sattedars.
By virtue of S. 19 the State Government framed rules called the Madhya Pradesh Tendu Patta Vyapar Viniyaman Niyamavali, 1965 referred to hereinafter as the rules .
Finding, however, that instead of distributing the said leaves to the sattedars, the branch managers were issuing permits for bulk transport, the said officer on October 12, 1965 rescinded his order of June 8, 1965.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
439 of 1965.
Petition No.
In 1964, the State Legislature passed the Madhya Pradesh Tendu Patta Vyapar Viniyaman Adhiniyam, 29 of 1964 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
2262 of 1966.
N. Shroff, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. This appeal under certificate is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants in that Court.
The appellants are a partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling bidis and purchase, stock, transport and companysume for that purpose companysiderable quantity of tendu leaves.
K. Sen and Rameshwar Nath, for the appellants.
According to the practice of the appellants, the said sattedars enter into companytracts with them under which the appellants supply to them the said leaves and the tobacco and the sattedars deliver to the appellants bidis rolled by the mazdoors in proportion to the quantity of the leaves and tobacco supplied to them.
