The judgement of a Judicial Commissioner

Akham Bonbirdhwaja Singh *

A man taking out a log of wood from the reserve forest :: Pix - Hueiyen Lanpao/ RC Mangangcha

There are three court orders passed in connection with forests and wild life which greatly fascinates me. One is the omnibus case of WP ( C) 202 of 1995 (Godavarman Case), the other one is the wild life case C.A. No 2024/2010 (arising out of SLP (crl) 5599 of 2009) known as Leopard Skin Case ( Sansarchand Case) and the third one is an old case CWA No. 14-16/1962 relating to Manipur only, passed by the Judicial Commissioner, TNR Tirumalpad known as Royalty Case (Thoudam Ibomcha Case).

All of them are masterpieces in their own aspect, landmark judgements which greatly influenced the working of forestry sector, the first two were passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which ignited judicial activism in forest and wildlife conservation and brought conservation issues to the fore.

I am thinking of bringing these judgements to the readers in some opportune time. The third one was passed by the Judicial Commissioner of Manipur while Manipur was an union territory (Part C State). He was the head of Judiciary of the Administration, may be equivalent to a High Court Judge now. My question is not connected with his status, but it is the beauty with which a controversial subject was legally analysed and delivered and to me, this was the foundation of later forest protection and management.

The rule of law should be the basis and a fair trial should always precede for taking any action. From this point, this case scrutinised the actions of the prosecution and gave a well balanced judgement.

Issue of Royalty : As per the judgement, the collection of Royalty after the act came in to force in the union territory of Manipur on the timber removed from the government forests as fixed by a Darbar Resolution and subsequently revised by the Chief Commissioner is not invalid (- Para 41 of the Judgement).

So, the rates of royalty fixed under Darbar Resolution No. 8 of dated 6.9.1944 are valid to be collected at toll stations. The Darbar Resolution No 8/6.9.1944 was continuation of Darbar Resolution No. 10A of 1932 which fixed rates of royalty of timber and firewood for the first time. The present powers to fix royalty by the state are extensions of this inherent powers and amending the rates from time to time.

In the face of section 40 which empowers the state to fix rates of royalty and in the face of the notification by the Union of India, constituting the Chief Commissioner a state government, under the Indian Forest Act, it is permissible for the Chief Commissioner to issue orders fixing such royalty from time to time (para 41). Hence, the royalty was officially chargeable government revenue which can be collected mode of which can be as directed by the state.

Check Posts & Toll Stations : The Manipur State Darbar set up toll stations for collection of royalty vide its resolutions 3/R, 11, 11/R of 1936 and 8of 1944. The Check Posts and toll stations are to be set up as per rules made under the Act, as we have now in Rule 34 of MFR, 1971.

However, we had no rules framed in those days; the Act was adopted in 1941 partly and later amended in 1945 by the Darbar.

Though no rules were framed by the Government of the Union territory of Manipur under Sec. 41 and 42, then and when the Act came in to force there in April 1950, and as per the order of the JC, the Manipur Administration already had the authority to have check posts and to direct the issue of transit passes and to collect royalty (Para 44 & 47).

The Darbar resolutions under which royalty was collected in the erstwhile Manipur state and toll stations were established for the collections amounted to a law and as they were in force when Manipur became an union territory they were saved by Ss 5 & 6 of the Manipur Administration Order, 1949 (para 42).

The royalty to be collected raised in the Writ Application was connected with the Koubru Hills and hills overlooking the DMC Road. Most of these forests overlooking DMC Road were Unclassed forests which were earlier known as Open Reserve. According to this judgement, these collections are valid collections.

What is DMC Road? We had a number of good forests, overlooking DMC Road. The DMC Road was not Dhanamanjuri College Road (which some section of encroachers used to confuse the courts with ulterior motive now), but it stands for Dimapur Manipur Cart Road as can be found in this order (It is found in other documents too).

The Koubru Hills was famous for its biodiversity in those days too and now also and it overlooks the DMC Road.

Darbar Resolutions & Indian Forest Act : After the constitution came in to force, as Art 372 provided that all laws immediately in force before the constitution shall continue in force until altered, repealed or amended by competent legislature or authority (para 43).

Section 4 of the part C state laws Act, 1950 which extended forest act in to Manipur on 15.4.1950, repealed any law which immediately before the commencement of the Act was in force which corresponded to the forest act. Here, an important law point is that, the rules framed by the Darbar had already become a part of the adopted Act in 1941 and 1945, so question arises whether these orders of the Darbar should also go when this Acts was deemed to be repealed by the Act of 1950.

But under the proviso to that section (Sec 4), the rules, regulations, instructions, orders already issued are saved and hence, the imposition of royalty by the Manipur State Darbar has to be treated as royalty permitted to be collected under section 40 of Forest act. Similarly, the Darbar Resolutions which provided for the fixing of toll stations will have to be treated as a rule issued under S. 41. Thus the proviso saved the Darbar resolutions from repeal and these Darbar resolutions could be validly continued by the Manipur Administration until superseded (para 44).

Powers of Forest Officers : Another interesting thing which can be observed in the order is that in those days, the forest and police officers used to check the timber stored in the premises of any person, which are not normally done nowadays. The Forest Officers had powers to check the validity of timber anywhere they are found, any godown or households. In fact the same provision is available under sect 72 of IFA. Further, any forest produce shall be presumed to be a government property unless otherwise is proved (Sec 69 of IFA).

Another point raised is the issue of commission by omission. The writ applicants failed or ignored to take actions to plug a pilferage through a bypass through which timber was passing without paying royalty. The charged officers did not do anything to check this. The order took cognizance of it against the charged officers. Further, Para 47 of the order raised the issue that the Forest officers are Public Servants under Sec. 73 of the Act and as such, they are bound to do duties as entrusted to them by the Government under the IFA. This order of the Judicial Commissioner equated such entrustments to the rules under statutes. They do not have the right to refuse to do any lawful work entrusted to them.

Conclusion : All the three writ applications were rejected, and needless to say, the findings of the Departmental Inquiry were upheld. One last point I would like to mention was a legal point that a charged officer can engage an assistant in the form of another government employee to help him with service matter points but he cannot engage a pleader or legal practitioner to help him unless prosecution engages a pleader or the Inquiry Officer himself is a legal practitioner. This was of course a point under the CCS (CCA) Rules, not having much bearing on working of forests. This aside, this judgement of TNR Tirumalpad, JC, strengthened the foundation of Forest Department of Manipur and had great implication in the working of forests.

Another essence of fine judiciary noticeable in this judgement is that, though, there are some gaps in quoting the right Section of the Act in the orders in those days, the Court knew the intention and looked in the overall interest of the public and general spirit of such orders without trying to find some petty loopholes.

Not having a rule to implement the Act was a handicap. Shri RKBC Singh, first local State Forest Officer (prior to redesignation as Chief Forest Officer) tried to frame rules in 1951 (I saw his attempts in his own handwriting as a draft), but didn’t see lights. After this landmark judgement, the Manipur Forest Rule came in to force in 1965, and we all owe it to the great jurist called Tirumalpad JC.