MP High Court Cites Wrath Of Timber Mafia Depicted In 'Pushpa', Annuls Notification Exempting 62 Species Of Forest Produce From Transit Rules

The court held the 2015 notification and subsequent 2017 amendment are "ultra vires" the provisions of Sections 41(1), (2) & (3) of the Forests Act and violative of Articles 14, 21, 48-A of the Constitution of India. It further observed that it was constrained to believe that exemption notification "had made the trees, plantation and biodiversity of the State present in its forest areas extremely vulnerable to the timber mafia". 

In doing so, the Court said that the power of exemption available under Section 41(3) of Indian Forest Act seems to have been unmindfully exercised, without undertaking any study or research survey of the species exempted, which amounts to gross abdication of constitutional duty as a 'trustee' of natural resources, as envisaged under Article 48A of the Constitution of India read with Section 41(1) of the Forest Act. 

Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act provides State the power to make rules to regulate transit of forest produce.

Court refers to 'Pushpa', mafia of illegal transport of forest produce robs it of its natural wealth

While making the observations, the Court on a lighter note referred to the movie 'Pushpa' stating that it highlighted the syndicate of traders and smugglers engaged in illegal transportation, trading and selling of red sandalwood in the deep green forests of Seshachalam, Andhra Pradesh. The court noted that it depicts how the "monster and mafia of illegal business and transportation of forest produce" can penetrate into the deep forests and in collusion with the State machinery rob the forest of its natural wealth, with the executive bending to the clout and influence of such syndicate of 'forest produce' peddlers.

If non-exempted species appears similar to exempted ones it will be subjected to an 'axe'

While answering a reference constituted squarely for determining the constitutionality and validity of the 2015 notification, a special bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Justice Sushrut Dharmadhikari and Justice Vivek Jain observed:

“The effect and impact of the impugned notifications exempting around 62 - 63 species of trees and plants and their forest produce is therefore palpably writ large. The senior officials of the forest department have been echoing the concern of illegal deforestation being amplified for generation, transportation and trading of trees and plants falling under the exempted category. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that even though any species may not be exempted, but if in its appearances and resemblances it is strikingly similar to any of the exempted species, that may also become vulnerable to deforestation and being placed under the axe/hammer. One also cannot lose sight of the fact that the forest officials at the checking point/barrier naaka, possibly in the garb of permitting transportation of the exempted species may also permit those timber trees, timber and forest produce, which may have such similar resemblances. The possibility of abuse and misuse of the exempting provisions not only can be ruled out completely, but can be readily believed to be existing in many parts of the State. The interveners as well as the petitioners have highlighted in their applications supported by annexures how the various trees and plants growing naturally inside the dense and deciduous forest of the State have become vulnerable to being uprooted or chopped off with the active involvement of the timber mafia with the forest officials or local representatives of the Gram Panchayat.”

The court also noted that 2015 notification was issued "mechanically", without studying and examining the fundamental aspect of impact of such exemptions on the existing forest cover of the State. It said that the same provokes the Court's conscience which has been compounded by "dissatisfactory answers" given by the State in the present proceedings.

It underscored that it had been almost 10 years since the exemption notifications were issued and an additional obligation was on the State to examine the impact and correlation of the notification with the fast depleting forest cover of the State. 

It further referred to a Section 41(3) of the Forest Act to observed that the power available to the State Government is  transitory, temporal power, having a fixed life/ duration, which is determined by the existence of compelling circumstances; hence the 'exception/ exemption clauses' also can never be presumed to be existing till eternity. 

The court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation plea challenging the constitutionality of a September 24, 2015 state gazette notification exempting 53 species of forest produce from the operation of the rigours of regulatory provisions under the Transit Rules. Subsequently through another notification dated April 11, 2017 the 2015 notification was amended to exclude another 9-10 species of forest produce from the rigours of Transit Rules.

Purpose of Indian Forest Act, 1927

The Indian Forest Act, 1927 has been enacted to consolidate the law relating to forests, the transit of forest-produce and the duty leviable on timber and other 'forest-produce'. The scheme of the Forest Act is not limited to the preservation and conservation of the forest area as notified under the enactment, but also each and every ingredient constituting such a forest, viz. the 'forest-produce', 'timber', 'wood and trees' present within its confines.

Meaning of 'Forest Produce'

Section 2(4) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 defines 'forest produce' as items "found in or brought" from a forest which includes timber, trees and leaves, flowers and fruits and all other parts or produce of trees or plants (including grass, creepers, reeds and moss).

Section 2(6) defines 'timber' which also comes under the ambit of 'forest produce'. Timber includes trees when they have fallen or have been felled, and all wood whether cut up or fashioned or hollowed out for any purpose or not.

Purpose of the Transit Rules, 2000

The Transit Rules, 2000 regulate the transit, movement and transportation of forest produce originating from the forest or private lands within the State of Madhya Pradesh to outside the State or within the State. The rules aim for regulation, streamlining and transparency in the transit of forest produce. The officers of the forest department as well as the Gram Panchayat at the village level have been authorised to ensure effective, efficacious implementation of the Rules, in respect of which vast powers have also been conferred for stopping any carriage of forest produce, undertake checking and surveillance whenever so felt necessary or in case of suspicion about the legality of the forest produce being so transported.

State couldn't explain probable adverse effects of exempting large number of species

The high court in its order observed that when confronted with the documents about the endemic problem arising out of the impugned notification, the Additional Advocate General was unable to satisfactorily offer any explanation.

It was simply stated that there are sufficient checks and balances available on the field for distinguishing between produce of privately grown trees from that of what is generated in the forest areas. The Court also noted that the State, despite being asked repeatedly in the course of hearing, was not able to provide any sufficient explanation about the probable adverse effects of exempting such large number of species from the regulatory regime of the State.

“However, in the absence of any contest to the inter departmental correspondences, inquiry reports of its own officers of the forest department, we are constrained to believe that exemption notification has made the trees, plantation and biodiversity of the State present in the forest areas extremely vulnerable to the timber mafia. But for the eye opening documents brought on record by the PIL petitioners and environmentalists, this Court otherwise would have completely been aloof of the ground reality, and would have held the impugned exemption notification as completely constitutional, having been issued within the confines of powers delegated under Sec. 41(3) of the Forest Act.”, the Court said.

No study, survey, document to show that 63 species deserved exemption

The Court further noted that apart from the absence of any study or survey behind issuance of the impugned notification, there is no document brought on record to show that all the 62-63 species deserve exercise of exceptional powers of exemption under Sec. 41(3) of the Forest Act after 10 years of their exemption by the State.

Thus, the Court held the impugned notification dated 24.09.2015 and the subsequent amendment in 2017 as ultra vires the provisions of Secs. 41(1), (2) & (3) being manifestly arbitrary having been issued without any compelling reasons or circumstances.

Since the annulment of the notification might have automatically led to revival of the previously issued notifications of 2005 and 2007, therefore the Court has kept the operation and effect of all the statutory provisions, notifications issued under the provisions of Transit Rules, 2000 granting blanket exemption to the 13-14 species for the whole State from 2000 onwards, in abeyance and suspension for the next six months. In doing so, the Court has asked the State to undertake the exercise of data collection & empirical study of all the exempted species to be conducted by a High Powered Committee, the constitution of which has also been provided by the court. 

Directions issued by the Court

• The annulment of the impugned notification shall revive the applicability of Transit Pass Rules, 2000 to all the previously exempted 62-63 species in their full effect, which must be implemented with immediate effect by the State Government.
• The previously issued exemption notifications of 2005 and 2007 are kept in abeyance for a period of 6 months for State to undertake the exercise of collection and collation of necessary data before implementing both the said exemptions notifications.
• A maximum time frame of 10 days shall be given to all the persons/entities in possession of or in the occupation of transit/ transportation of exempted categories of forest produce and timber to take all necessary steps for compliance of provisions of the Transit Rules, 2000.
• The State Government and its instrumentalities shall ensure State wide dissemination of directions of the Court in the present judgment within a period of 3 days from the date of the judgment, through both print and electronic media so that the effective compliance of the directions of this Court takes place timely by every person/ entity in the State.
• The State authorities shall ensure the circulation of operative directions of this Court to all officials of their respective departments and Gram Panchayats for ensuring proper implementation of Transit Rules, 2000 qua all the exempted species (without any exception) with immediate effect.
• The operative part of this judgment, viz. the directions shall be published on the homepage of the official websites of all concerned departments of the State, who are responsible in any manner (even remotely) for implementation of the Transit Pass Rules at the grassroots level. The personal responsibility for this dissemination shall lie on the shoulders of Principal Secretary of the concerned departments.

Case Title: Vivek Kumar Sharma versus The State of Madhya Pradesh, Writ Petition No. 13864 of 2019

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 49