Conditional legislation over forest produce upheld; bamboo contracts were validly rescinded by retrospective statutory amendment and notification.

Bamboo contracts were treated as contractual rights dependent on the agreements themselves, not as independent profits a prendre, so they did not survive a valid statutory rescission. The commencement power under Section 1(3) was characterised as conditional legislation because the legislature fixed the policy, subject matter, and field of operation, leaving only the timing and extent of commencement to the State. The subsequent amendments and notifications validly extended the Act to bamboo in Government forests and rescinded inconsistent contracts from the notified date. The constitutional challenge failed because the scheme was a lawful trade-regulation measure aimed at State control of forest produce and public interest.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the bamboo contracts conferred rights independent of contract in the nature of profits a prendre so as to survive statutory rescission; (ii) whether Section 1(3) of the Orissa Forest Produce (Control of Trade) Act, 1981 involved excessive delegation; (iii) whether the subsequent amendments and notifications validly brought bamboo in Government forests within the Act and rescinded the contracts; and (iv) whether the impugned provisions and notifications were constitutionally invalid.

Issue (i): Whether the bamboo contracts conferred rights independent of contract in the nature of profits a prendre so as to survive statutory rescission.

Analysis: The earlier decision concerning bamboo contracts was confined to the limited question whether the amounts payable under the agreements were exigible to sales tax. It did not decide that the contractors held a pre-existing right or grant independent of the agreements. The rights claimed under the bamboo contracts were held to be created by and dependent upon the agreements themselves. Once the statute validly rescinded contracts for forest produce, no contractual right or grant could survive contrary legislation.

Conclusion: The claimed rights were not independent of contract and did not survive statutory rescission.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 1(3) of the Orissa Forest Produce (Control of Trade) Act, 1981 involved excessive delegation.

Analysis: Section 1(3) merely authorised the State Government to bring the Act into force in specified areas and in relation to specified forest produce on specified dates. The legislative policy, the subject matter, and the field of operation were all fixed by the legislature. The power to choose the time and extent of commencement was held to be a classic instance of conditional legislation, not an impermissible delegation of legislative function.

Conclusion: Section 1(3) was valid and did not suffer from excessive delegation.

Issue (iii): Whether the subsequent amendments and notifications validly brought bamboo in Government forests within the Act and rescinded the contracts.

Analysis: The amendments inserted a broad non obstante rescission clause covering contracts and grants of profits a prendre, and the retrospective deeming provision made the amendment part of the principal Act from the original date of notification. The notifications validly specified the date and the forest produce, and no second notification was required to give effect to the amended text. The statutory scheme therefore operated to rescind the bamboo contracts from the notified date when the Act was brought into force for bamboos in the relevant areas.

Conclusion: The amendments and notifications validly applied the Act to bamboos and rescinded the contracts.

Issue (iv): Whether the impugned provisions and notifications were constitutionally invalid.

Analysis: The legislation was enacted to control and regulate trade in forest produce through State monopoly, a policy measure rationally connected with preventing smuggling and protecting the public interest. The Act did not acquire land but regulated trade and displaced inconsistent private rights by authority of law. The constitutional challenge, including the attack based on alleged inconsistency with the earlier forest legislation, was rejected.

Conclusion: The impugned provisions and notifications were constitutionally valid.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme lawfully displaced the contractors' rights in bamboo, and the challenge to the legislation and notifications failed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a legislature validly enacts a conditional statute creating State monopoly over forest produce and later gives it retrospective effect by a deeming amendment, all contractual rights and grants inconsistent with that law stand rescinded from the notified date, and the commencement power under the statute is not excessive delegation.

---