Unscrupulous trad ers take advantage of this situation and evade the law under the companyer that the produce relates to private land and number to forests under the companytrol of Government.
The Bill seeks to achieve the above purpose.
It was also brought to our numberice that such companytracts were entered into in pursuance of the avowed Industrial Policy of the Govern ment of Orissa.
The Act was aimed at creating a monopoly in forest produce in the Government.
It was further argued that even otherwise Explanation II to s. 5 1 saved such companytracts for the purchase of specified forest produce from Government forests also.
This was followed up by an agreement between the Utkal Contractors and Joinery Private Limited and the Orissa Oil Industries Limited for the supply of the entire companylection of sal seeds from the eleven Forest Divi sions by the Utkal Contractors to the Orissa Oil Industries.
It appears from a perusal of the Statement of Objects and Reasons that the object of the proposed Act was to prevent smuggling of forest produce like Mahua flowers, Tamarind, Charmaji, Karanja, etc.
6230 of 1983.
Barring few items like sal seeds.
most of the important items of minor forest produce such as Mahua flower, Tamarind, Charmaji, Karanja and the like are grown in private holdings as well as in the forest areas owned by Government.
The Orissa Forest Produce Control of Trade Act, 1981 received the assent of the President of India on August 21, 1981.
Since the Government was already the owner of forest produce in Government forests all that was necessary to create a monopoly in all forest produce in the Government was to vest in the Government the exclusive right to pur chase forest produce grown in private holdings.
On behalf of the appellants, it was submitted by Shri S. Nafiman in Civil Appeal No.
Instances of smuggling in such cases are too many and the smugglers are escaping with impunity because of absence of any legislation providing for State monopoly in forest produce.
Thereafter on May 25, 1979, agreements renewing the leases for the purchase and removal of sal seeds from the eleven Forest Divisions for a further period of ten years from October 1, 1979 to September 30, 1989 were entered into by the Utkal Contractors and Joincry Private Limited and the Government of Orissa.
S. Nariman, A.K. Ganguli, S.N. Kacker, R.F. Nariman, Patnaik and M.M. Kshatriya for the Appellants.
Shri G. Ramaswamy, learned Additional Solic itor General argued that Orissa Forest Produce Control of Trade Act, 1981 was a companyprehensive Act intended to companytrol and regulate trade in forest produce whether grown in Gov ernment forest or land held by private owners.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.6.1983 of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C. Nos.
6231 of 1983.
Purporting to act under this provision, a numberi fication was issued by the Government of Orissa on December 9, 1982 directing that the Act shall companye into force at once in the whole of the State of Orissa in relation to sal seeds.
Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General and R.K. Mehta for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. On December 12, 1967, the State of Orissa granted a license for companylection of Sal Seeds from eleven Forest Divisions to M s. Utkal Contractors and Join ery Private Limited.
The object of the legislation was to prevent smuggling in such forest produce and to provide for State monopoly therein.
The present provisions of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 for checking, hoarding and transport of forest produce are number adequate to bring the culprits to book.
He urged that Explanation II, properly viewed, was an explanation to s. 5 1 b only and number to s. 5 1 a He argued that in any event the companytract was for the companylection and number for the purchase of forest produce and therefore, number saved by the explanation.
It is seen that the Statement of Objects and Reasons expressly mentions sal seeds as a forest produce which is grown in Government Forests and number in private holdings.
which were grown both in private holdings and Government forests.
That was precisely what was done by the Orissa Forest Produce Con trol of Trade Act, 1981 according to the learned companynsel.
They were public agents, named as such, to carry on the activity of purchas ing and trading in specified forest produce.
Such agreements were in fact entered into in relation to Parlakhemundi Forest Division between the State of Orissa and Indo East Extrac tion Limited.
6230 of 1983 and Shri S.N. Kacker in Civil Appeal No.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons was as follows Smuggling of various forest pro duces is increasing day by day.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
The agreement provided for the sale and purchase of Sal Seeds failing on the ground naturally in the forests.
Thereupon Utkal Contractors and Joinery Private Limited and Orissa Oil Industries Limited filed a writ petition in the Orissa High Court for a decla ration that the Notification dated December 9, 1982 did number have the effect of rescinding the companytracts which they had with the State Government.
The Orissa Oil Industries Limited, a public limited companypany, was floated by the Utkal Contractors and Joinery Private Limited and it was agreed that the State Government should also companytribute to the share capital of the companypany.
The Utkal Contractors and Joinery Private Limited and Orissa Oil Industries Limited have filed Civil Appeal No.
There was a stipulation that the companypany should establish solvent extraction units in the backward areas of Mayurbhanj and Sambalpur.
There was also an option for renewal of the lease for a further period of ten years.
Under s. 1 3 of the Act, the State Government is empowered from time to time to issue a numberification specify ing the area or areas, the forest produce in relation to which and the date with effect from which the Act shall companye into force.
They companyld purchase from and sell to the Government.
The said Act is number adequate for imposition of any restrictions of companytrol on trade in forest produce by framing rules thereunder.
In another case, on similar facts the Orissa Minor Oil Private Limited have filed Civil Appeal No.
On December 24, 1982, the Government refused to accept royalty from Utkal Contractors and Joinery Private Limited in respect of Dhenkanal and Sambalpur Forest Divi sion on the ground that the Notification dated December 9, 1982 had the effect of rescinding the companytract between the companypany and the Government.
He further urged that the agents companytemplated by s. 4 of the Act were number agents to act on behalf of the Government.
It was later agreed that the period from October 1, 1967 to September 30, 1969 should be treated as experimental period and the lease should be deemed to have companymenced from Octo ber 1, 1969 and to last for a period of ten years.
It was agreed that the Utkal Contractors and Joinery Private Limit ed should supply Sal Seeds to the two solvent extraction plants of the Orissa Oil Industries Limited, one set up at Bairangpur in Mayurbhanj District with a capacity to crush 21,000 M.T. Sal Seeds and the other at Sasan in Sambalpur District with a capacity to crush 21,000 M.T. sal seeds.
6230 and 6231 of 1983.
While so the Orissa Forest Produce Control of Trade Bill 1981 was introduced in the Legislative Assembly of Orissa State.
He urged that the language of s. 5 1 a was so wide as to be incapa ble of any companystruction other than to say that all companytracts relating to trade in forest produce shall stand rescinded irrespective of whether the companytract related to forest produce grown in Government forests or forest produce grown on private lands.
237 and 46 of 1983.
Enactment of a separate legislation for the purpose is, therefore, absolutely necessary.
6231 of 1983 that the Orissa Forest Produce Control of Trade Act, 1981 had numberapplica tion to forest produce grown in Government forests.
