Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Wooden Furniture Works And Ors. vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 21 April, 1987
Equivalent citations: AIR1988AP301, AIR 1988 ANDHRA PRADESH 301, (1987) 2 APLJ 279
JUDGMENT Raghuvir, J.
1. The forests in India are dwindling. An aerial survey by Indian Space Research Organisation in 1974 found many of the Reserve Forests sans trees. The Satellite photographic showed tree growth in 1.5 million hectares was lost every year. The -establishment while it prescribed 33 per cent of the land is to be covered by green belt, curiously the records showed only 23 per cent of the land was covered by forests. Or phys" verification in 1975 forests were found in less than eleven per cent of the total land The situation discovered was rather alarming Then followed an intense activity to preserve trees. Simultaneously strenuous effort was made to stop illicit felling of trees. In Andhra Pradesh there is no "Chipko" movement Effort however is made to streamline the statutes, to preserve trees. In this regard on May 23, 1985 by G. O. Ms. No. 234 Andhra Pradesh Saw Mill Regulations of 1969 were radically amended. The above case in this Court relates to vires of the amended 196 .regulations.
2. The regulations divide the saw mills in three categories from the stand-point of location of forests. Saw mills located with five kilometres from forests are classified one category. The second category are the saw mills located beyond five kilometres. The third are those located 35 Kms. away from forests.
3. The 1969 Regulations are thirteen in number. They cover all aspects including as to how a licence is obtained. When a saw mill licence can be cancelled. The regulations speak of remedies that are available to mill as when they are adversely affected. Regulation' 4 spells out the procedure how a saw-mill can be established. The consequences are set out in the Regulation if applications are not processed in time by the forest department. Under sub-cl. (3) of Regulation 4 deposit of Rs.10,000/- is made compulsory for the mills that are located within five kilometres from a forest. Regulation 5 provides how a licence is renewed. Regulation 6 provides how registers are maintained. Regulation 7 creates a right of entry in favour of forest officials to inspect the mill premises. Regulation 8 prescribes a fee of Rs.500/- for according a licence. Regulation 9 covers revocation of licences, seizure, confiscation of mills. Regulation 10 recites, reasons are to he disclosed in an order when a licence is revoked. Regulation 11 provides departmental appeals. Regulation 12 deals with the supply of energy. What mills are exempted is recited in Regulation 13. These Regulations were unsuccessfully assailed in a group of writ petitions by the millers. Hence appeals.
4. The regulations are attacked as ultra vires of Act 1 of 1967 and on other cognate grounds. It was urged the fee of Rs.500/- and the 'Regulation requiring the deposit of Rs.10,000/- were unjustified. The fee for a licence in 1969 was Rs.25/-. In 1985 fee was enhanced to Rs. "/-. The contentions Of the millers as respects fee and deposit were rejected as unsustainable in law. As to security deposit it was held, the deposit is were made for the due observance of the conditions of been e and with a view to avoid illicit felling of trees. The fee of Rs.500/- it was held, was not excessive. The contentions that were raised in the order under appeal are repeated in this Court over again.
5. We may now advert to the contentions as to fee of Rs.500/-. The collection of the fee of Rs.500/- is attacked as extortionate and on the ground that no service is rendered to the millers to commensurate with the amount of Rs.500/- from each of the millers. The cases were cited to invalidate the collection of Rs.500/- and revert back to the fee of Rs.25/. It is not necessary to refer to all the cases cited except the cases of the Supreme Court decided in recent past and in one such case it was said a 'sea change' was made in the outlook of some of the incidents of the levy.
6. In the past seven years the Supreme Court reviewed the Principles in five cases. The cases decided by the Supreme Court till 1980 were reviewed in Kewal Krishan Puri v. State of Punjab. A IR 198() SC I(X)8 in that the principles were restated. Seven principles were culled out from the decided cases. 1. It is not necessary, fee collected must he car- marked separately for rendering services. 2. What expenditure is relevant, lines were redrawn to hold when a service is rendered. 3. Purpose of the enactment was held relevant to the expenditure. 4. The "general interest of all concerned" it was exhorted to be borne in mind. 5. The radius was elongated to widen the circle to cover persons removed a step or two away from those from whom collection was made. To illustrate, in lien fee is collected from agriculturists, it is shown benefits conferred to traders were not exclude(A. 6. New light was thrown on the rule of quid pro quo. Third requirement to strike arithmetical exactitude was deprecated. 7. It was held two-thirds or three-fourths expended for the beneficiaries was held sufficient.
7. In the seven principles thus stated it is true there are contradictions and in some the principles are repeated. The inconsistencies need not be examined, as the principles. were further modified, in succeeding cases. For example, what was "cess" of 'fee' (sic) the requirement t he amount was separately kept was dealt with in Southern Pharmaceutical and Chemicals v. State of Kerala, . It was held: "It is now increasingly realised that merely because the collections for the service rendered or grant of a privilege licence, are taken t o the consolidated fund of the State and are not separately appropriated towards the expenditure for rendering the service is not by itself decisive:. In Sreenivasa General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh. who were beneficiaries were identified. It illustrate when market fee was collected acquisition of site for market. Establishment, maintenance and ,improvement of the construction of buildings. Maintenance (if standard weights and measures promotion of grading services. measures for the preservation of foodgrains were held covered under the head expenditure. In Om Prakash v. Giri Raj Kishori, AIR 19,W,.y SC 720 the cess collected under S. 3 of Haryana Rural Development Fund Act 12 of 1983 and elaborated to include roads, hospitals, means of communication. Water supply. sanitation facilities and welfare of agricultural labour covered the expenditure. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Mohd. Yasim it was stressed: "compulsion is not the ball- mark of the, distinction between a tax and a fee. Nor is the Court to assume the role of a Cost Accountant". It was repeated quid pro quo was not index of a fee nor in its absence the levy was a tax. (Para 9) This compass covered mere persons as beneficiaries and cases of slaughter houses. See what is brought in under the held in expenditure ...... the expenditure involved in the purchase, maintenance and the use of trucks and other vehicles for the removal of facial and refuse from slaughter houses. These expenses, though attributable to houses are debited in the Municipal budget under other beads such as transport. Conservancy, petrol and oil etc. There is also the expenditure incurred in connection with the maintenance of supervisors staff like a full time veterinary officer and Municipal Health Officer. Deputy Health Officer. Zonal Health Officer. etc.. a considerable part of whose duties are connected with slaughter houses. There is then the cost of depreciation of the buildings, and fittings in the slaughter house. There is also the provisions for expansion and improvement of their house facilities."
8. In the instant case in all additional affidavit it is averred. in 1969 there was a flying squad in the Forest Department. Now the squads are increased to f is c due to large scale illicit felling of trees. Each squad consists of a Divisional Forest Officer two Range Officers. three foresters, Four Forest Guards and Forest Watchers. Because of large scale felling the expenditure increased, therefore, the fee is increased to Rs.500/- in 1985 from Rs.25/- in 1969.
9. In the order under appeal it is held inflation of rupee covered a big chunk of Rs.500/-. A finding is rendered, Rs.500/- was not unjustified. It is not shown the finding is not correct. We are also in agreement with, the reasoning of the learned single judge that the deposit of Rs.10,000/- subserves enforcement of Regulations. Nothing is suggested to hold the requirement is ultra vires of the Act.
10. Some millers argued, the format prescribed in columns 8, 9, 10 and 11 of Regn.6A as respects maintenance of registers cannot be complied. We had not understanding any difficulty of miller in this regard. Finally it is argued the Regulation run counter to Ss. 29 and 68 of the Forest Act 1 of 1967 and for that reason are Ultra vires of the Act. On a verification of the powers and purposes of the Act, no regulation is shown to be ultra vires of the Act.
11. The learned single Judge in the order under appeal directed the Government to pay interest to the depositors (those who made the deposit of Rs.10,000/-) at 13.5% per annum, with halfy early rests. The directionis attacked by the State as not justified, in view of the elaborate provision made in Arts. 214, 279 and 2R) of the Andhra Pradesh Financial Code, Volume 1. These Articles cover payment of interest to the depositors in Cls. 2 to 6 of Art. 279. Interest, is paid whenever deposits are made (not necessarily in Forest Department) in favour of the State Govt. In view, of what is contained in Art. 279 the direction to pay interest is deleted as unnecessary.
12. The appeals for all the aforesaid reasons fail and are dismissed. No costs Advocates fee is Rs.150/- in each.
13. Appeals dismissed.