State monopoly over tendu leaves prevails where a contract gives only a licence, not proprietary rights.

The prior decision did not bar the present claim because the later dispute arose under a new statute creating a different legal situation, so res judicata did not apply. The petitioner's agreement was treated as giving only contractual rights, or at most a licence to enter the forest and collect tendu leaves, not a proprietary right in the leaves themselves. Section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964 created a State monopoly over purchase and transport of tendu leaves and permitted purchase only from the State Government, its officers or agents. The petitioner therefore had no enforceable right to resist the statutory scheme, and the petition failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner's contractual right to collect tendu leaves survived the Madhya Pradesh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964, and whether the earlier decision protected that right as res judicata.

Analysis: The earlier decision was held not to operate as res judicata because the present cause of action arose under a new statute creating a different legal situation. The agreement in question was treated as conferring only contractual rights or, at best, a licence to enter the forest and collect leaves, not a proprietary right in the leaves themselves. Section 5 of the Adhiniyam imposed a State monopoly over purchase and transport of tendu leaves, permitting purchase only from the State Government, its officers or agents. On that construction, the petitioner could not rely on the prior judgment to defeat the statutory scheme, and the Adhiniyam applied to it like it applied to others.

Conclusion: The petitioner had no enforceable right to resist the operation of the Adhiniyam, and its petition failed.

---