A.J. Peter Vs. Conservator of Forests, Ananthapur and Others

.....that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the act. thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in section 2(xv) of the act. whatever products are declared as such by the government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the act. consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under section 3(1) read with section 3(3) of the act on them it is competent for the government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [per p.s. narayana, j,(dissenting)]if livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. in view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. sections 4 & 3: [v.v.s. rao, n.v. ramana & p.s. narayana, jj] declaration of notified area held, it is only under section 3 that government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. it is very conspicuous that section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing..........to the higher authorities but no action has been taken so far. further, the 4th respondent has also seized certain red sanders on 5-3-1998 pending renewal application and after seizing the red sanders, the renewal application was rejected and therefore, the action of the 4th respondent in rejecting the application is only mala fide and coupled with extraneous consideration. hence, the petitioner submits that the action of the 4th respondent should be declared as illegal and void besides being without jurisdiction.3. even though notice was issued, the government pleader has not been able to assist the court. but, however, looking into the facts of the case, this court feels that it is a case where the petitioner should approach the appropriate appellate authority under the a.p. forest act for redressal of his grievance. though the learned counsel for the petitioner made an earnest attempt to convince this court that the 4th respondent was seriously prejudiced against him and no appreciable result would come if the petitioner approaches the appellate authority, i am not inclined to accept this contention as the appellate authority is bound to consider the matter with reference to the legal provisions without reference to the alleged personal grudge of the 4th respondent.4. under these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner may approach the appropriate appellate authority challenging the impugned orders and the actions of the 4th respondent. the petitioner is granted four weeks time from-to-day to take appropriate steps. no costs.