K.B Siddappa, J.:— Petitioners in these writ petitions are the Saw-mill and Timber Depot owners within the municipal limits of Rajahmundry, Kakinada and Nizamabad. They are seeking directions in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to insist for transit permits within the municipal limits. They pray to implement the Memo. No. 13941.For. III/94-1, dated 5-9-1994 issued by the Special Secretary to the Government, Energy and Forest Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh which (it is said) is kept in abeyance, according to the Government.
2. It is submitted that the insistence of transit permits within the municipal limits is causing great hardship and injury to the petitioners.
3. Even for routine and small consignments of sawn sizes for house-hold purposes permits are being demanded by the Officials. The procedural delay and the incidental expenditure involved in getting the transit permits for retail sales to the consumers is causing great inconvenience to the customers and has proved deterrent to their business itself. The hole/round timber (unsawn) is covered by transit permits when the said timber was transported from Government depots and also from the farms of the private owners. In such a case it is contended that the further insistence of transit permit when the timber was converted into sizes and sold to the consumers within the municipal limits works out great hardship and unnecessary restriction. The sawn sizes when sold to consumers will be covered by delivery challan and cash memo. The authorities can satisfy themselves, on perusal of these documents in the possession of the consumers, as to the genuineness of the source of timber. Further, the authorities are not implementing this policy of requiring the transit permit within all the municipal limits uniformly. For example, the authorities are not insisting on transit permits in a place like Ravulapalem, and for that matter even in Hyderabad Municipal Corporation limits and other places. There are no perceptible reasons for this discriminatory attitude on the part of the forest authorities. As a matter of fact, representations were made to the authorities and Special Secretary to the Government, Energy and Forest Department has passed a Memo not to insist for transit permits when the sawn timber is transported within the municipal limits. The subsequent action of keeping this Memo in abeyance is unwarranted and is causing great hardship both to the petitioners and to the consumers. It is their plea that the insistence of transit permits within the municipal limits works out as a control order on the trade of timber. As such, the action/restriction is not authorised under the provisions of the A.P Forest Act. Thus, the impugned action of the forest authorities is said to be violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 301 of the Constitution of India as it works out unreasonable restriction to the trade of the petitioners. Therefore, the Forest authorities are to be directed not to insist for transit permits within the municipal limits.
4. On the above points, the stand of the Government is stoic. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the A.P Forest Produce Transit Rules are framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 29, read with sub-section (1) of Section 68 of the A.P Forest Act. The timber sawn sizes and the timber cut in the saw-mills are also a forest produce within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the A.P Forest Act. Therefore, as per Rule 3, no forest produce shall be moved into, or from or within the State, by land or water, unless such produce is accompanied by the permit issued under Rule 5 of the A.P Forest Produce Transit Rules. The municipal limits in question are also within the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, by necessary implication, the petitioners have to obtain transit permits for transport of timber, sawn sizes etc. The Memo relaxing this requirement was kept in abeyance pending amendment to the A.P Forest Act/Rules.
5. Adverting to the question of discrimination, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the municipalities of Kakinada, Rajahmundry and Nizamabad are quite near to the forest boundaries. If free transit is allowed within the municipal limits of these municipalities, there is every likelihood of misusing that concession by transporting illicit timber from hear-by forests. Therefore, a Special insistence is made to Obtain transit permits in these municipal limits. However, he admitted that the transit permits are not insisted in certain Other municipal areas like Hyderabad. According to him, there are sufficient guidelines to impose restrictions in respect of the municipal limits of Kakinada, Rajahmundry and Nizamabad, as such restriction cannot be termed as discriminatory attracting the provisions of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) etc.
6. We cannot accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader as a whole. Though the Government Pleader, with some credit, can take the ground that these three municipalities in question can be singled out on the ground that they are nearer to the forest areas, that itself is not sufficient to impose stringent restrictions requiring the transit permits for the transport of sawn sizes and timber cut in the saw-mills within the said municipal limits in all cases. As rightly contended by the petitioners, the timber (unsawn) in the depot is already covered by the transit permit. If it is not covered, the authorities can verify and take action. In such a case, the further insistence of transit permit for every retail sale of sawn sizes to the consumers certainly works out hardship. Even for a small quantity of sawn sizes sold to consumer, transit permit has to be obtained if the stand of the Government is accepted. This involves unnecessary expenditure and also delay causing much inconvenience to the trading activities of the petitioners and also the consumers. There are sufficient provisions in the A.P Forest Act to check transit of illicit timber even in the municipal limits. Ordinarily, the retail sales of sawn sizes will be covered by cash memos and delivery challans. The authorities can verify the genuineness of these documents to ascertain the source of the timber. The authorities cannot insist transit permits in respect of these retail sales to the consumers in the guise of cheeking transport of illicit timber within the limits of the municipalities in question. The Government in their good sense have already issued the Memo dated 5-9-1994. But, for the reasons best known to them, again kept this Memo in abeyance.
7. It is a settled principle that in considering the validity the provisions of a statute; the Court will presume that the legislation was intended to be intra vires and also reasonable and that the rule followed is that the section ought to be interpreted consistent with the presumption which imputes to the Legislature an intention of limiting the direct operation of its enactment to the extent that is permissible, as held by the Supreme Court in All Saints High School v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (1980) 2 SCC 478 : AIR 1980 SC 1042. In the same decision, the principle of reading down the provisions of a statute has been explained as follows:—
“This Court has in several cases adopted the principle of reading down the provisions of the Statute. The reading down of a provision of a statute puts into operation the principle that so far as it is reasonably possible to do so, the legislation should be construed as being within its power. It has the principal effect that where an Act is expressed in language of a generality which makes it capable, if read literally, of applying to matters beyond the relevant legislative power, the Court will construe it in a more limited sense so as to keep it within power.”
8. If the broad and literal interpretation is given to the impugned rule, the rule will operate harshly and in an unreasonable manner. Therefore, we feel that it must be suitably read down without striking down the rule itself. In the circumstances of the case, it would suffice if we direct the Forest authorities not to insist on the transit permits in respect of the sales of timber sawn sizes sold in retail to the consumers when the same are transported from saw-mills and/or depots to the places of consumers. The authorities can however verify the relevant documents viz. cash memo, delivery challan etc. If they feel genuine doubt with regard to the authenticity of these documents, they can probe further in the matter to ascertain whether the sawn sizes involved are illicit timber or not and take necessary action in accordance with law.
9. In some of the writ petitions, the petitioners prayed for a direction to the authorities not to insist on the implementation of A.P Forest Produce (Storage and Depot) Rules, 1989, as amended by G.O.Ms No. 92, dated 16-4-1994 in addition to the relief of directing the respondents not to insist for transit permit in Form No. II for each of the sales made by the Depot for the transit of goods within the municipal limits of Kakinada, Samarlakota municipal areas. We do not see any necessity to give directions to the authorities not to insist on the implementation of A.P Forest Produce (Storage and Depot) Rules, 1989, as amended by G.O.Ms No. 92, dated 16-4-1994 as the said G.O has already been struck down.
10. With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of, and in the circumstances without costs.