1993 (9) TMI 374 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules, affirming state's regulatory authority.

T.V. Balakrishnan Versus State of T.N. and Ors.

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules, 1968, dismissing appeals challenging the rules' legality. The Court affirmed ... - Issues:Challenge to the validity of certain rules under the Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules, 1968 based on rule-making power, fundamental rights, trade restrictions, and fee increase.Analysis:The appellants challenged the validity of Rules under the Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules, 1968, framed by the State Government under Sections 35 and 36 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882. The High Court dismissed the petitions, leading to appeals before the Supreme Court. The issues raised included the rule-making power of the State Government, infringement on fundamental rights, trade restrictions violating constitutional provisions, and unjustified fee increase for permits.The first point of contention was whether the Rules could be framed for the entire State or only for specific local areas. The High Court reasoned that uniform rules for the entire State were necessary, especially for timber transportation across different localities. The Court held that the State Government had the authority under Sections 35 and 36 to impose regulatory measures on timber movement statewide, ensuring no differential treatment based on localities.The High Court further determined that the impugned Rules were regulatory and did not violate the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court emphasized the importance of the Rules in preventing illicit activities like illegal tree felling and timber transportation, highlighting the necessity of regulatory measures like Form II passes and timber marking for forest management and protection.Regarding trade restrictions under Articles 301-304 of the Constitution, the High Court found the Rules to be regulatory rather than prohibitive, thus not contravening the constitutional provisions. Additionally, the High Court justified the fee increase for permits by noting that the State Government provided necessary services at check-points, satisfying the principle of quid pro quo.After reviewing the High Court's judgment and the arguments presented, the Supreme Court found no flaws in the reasoning or conclusions of the High Court. Consequently, the appeals and writ petitions were dismissed without costs, upholding the validity and necessity of the Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules, 1968 as framed by the State Government.