https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169682 A rule-making power to regulate transit of forest produce does not extend to provisions that operate as an absolute or qualified prohibition on transport. The impugned timber transit provisos, which barred movement during part of the night and imposed a cash-deposit condition for the remaining hours, were treated as substantive restrictions rather than mere regulation and were therefore beyond section 37 of the Mysore Forest Act. They also directly burdened freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse, and were not protected by Articles 304 or 305 because they were post-Constitution delegated rules, not existing law, and were not shown to be reasonable restrictions in the public interest. The provisos were struck down. en-us Mon, 16 Jan 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169682 A rule-making power to regulate transit of forest produce does not extend to provisions that operate as an absolute or qualified prohibition on transport. The impugned timber transit provisos, which barred movement during part of the night and imposed a cash-deposit condition for the remaining hours, were treated as substantive restrictions rather than mere regulation and were therefore beyond section 37 of the Mysore Forest Act. They also directly burdened freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse, and were not protected by Articles 304 or 305 because they were post-Constitution delegated rules, not existing law, and were not shown to be reasonable restrictions in the public interest. The provisos were struck down. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 16 Jan 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169682