As per case facts, the petitioners, who are traders/contractors in Tendu Leaves, challenged an order directing recovery of 2percent Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) from the purchase price of Tendu ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
1
CGHC010097142023 2026:CGHC:35815
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Order Reserved on : 14.07.2026
Order Delivered on : 13.08.2026
WPC No. 1457 of 2023
1 - M/s Ganesh Trading Through Proprietor Mr. Hasmukh Bhai Patel
S/o Late Chhagan Bhai Patel Age 49 Years, R/o 256, Ward No. 27,
Kailash Nagar, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Vinay Yadav S/o Jagjeevan Yadav Aged About 54 Years R/o Shastri
Chowk, Ward No. 16, Tulsipur, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Pravin Kumar Kotak S/o Late Ramnik Lal Kotak Aged About 66
Years R/o Station Para, Ward No. 8, District Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh.
4 - Chetan Patel S/o Kantilal Patel Aged About 34 Years R/o Near
Patidar Bhawan, G.E. Road, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Forest,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2
2 - Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board Through Chairman, Aranya
Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
3 - Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative
Federation Ltd. Through Managing Director Van Dhan Bhawan, Sector-
24, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattigarh.
4 - Conservator Of Forest/ex- Officio Chief General Manager Jagdalpur
Division, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd.
Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattigarh.
5 - Conservator Of Forest/ex- Officio Chief General Manager Durg
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd.
District Durg, Chhattisgarh
6 - Conservator Of Forest/ex- Officio Chief General Manager Kanker
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd.,
District Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
7 - Conservator Of Forest/ex- Officio Chief General Manager Bilaspur
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd.
District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
8 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh.
9 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.
10 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, West Bhanupratappur, District Kanker,
Chhattisgarh
3
11 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
12 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District Khairagarh, Chhattisgarh.
13 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3123 of 2023
1 - Vadera Enterprises Through Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar Vadera S/o
Late Jamnadas Vadera, Age-59 Years R/o Opposite State Bank Of
India Vithal Nagar, Gondia, Maharashtra.
2 - Jamnadas Morarji Through Partner Mr. Ajit Kumar Vadera, S/o
Ramesh Chandra Vadera Age-56 Years, R/o Opposite State Bank Of
India Vithal Nagar, Gondia, Maharashtra
3 - Morarji Tribhowandas Through Partner Mr. Prashant Vadera, S/o
Late Vijay Kumar Vadera, Age-39 Years R/o Opposite State Bank Of
India, Vithal Nagar, Gondia, Maharashtra.
4 - Shri Vijay Traders Through Partner Mr. Arun Kumar Vadera, S/o
Late Ramesh Kumar Vadera, Age-51 Years, R/o Opposite State Bank
Of India, Vithal Nagar, Gondia, Maharashtra.
5 - Bharatkumar H. Shah S/o Late Harilal Shah Aged About 57 Years
R/o House No. 138, Lohiya Ward No.2 Near Dr. Dharaskar Nursing
Home, Railtoly, Gondia, Maharashtra
4
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Forest,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board Through Chairman, Aranya
Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative
Federation Ltd Through Managing Director Van Dhan Bhawan, Sector-
24, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Conservator Of Forest/ex-Officio Chief General Manager Durg
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd,
District- Durg, Chhattisgarh
5 - Conservatior Of Forest/ex-officio Chief General Manager Raipur
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd,
District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
6 - Conservator Of Forest/ex-Officio Chief General Manager Kanker
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd,
District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh
7 - Manging Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
8 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, West Bhanupratappur, District- Kanker,
Chhattisgarh.
5
9 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District- Balodabazaar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3326 of 2023
M/s Ajay Traders Through Proprietor Mr. Ajay Agrawal S/o Shambhu Lal
Agrawal Age- 52 Years R/o H-2, 1st Floor, Ektama Parisar, Rajbandha
Maidan, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board Through Chairman, Aranya
Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
3 - Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative
Federation Ltd Through Managing Director Van Dan Bhawan, Sector-
24, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
4 - Conservator Of Forest/ Ex- Officio Chief General Manager Jashpur
Nagar Circle, Minor Forest Produce ( T And D) Co-Operative
Federation Ltd, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh
5 - Conservator Of Forest/ Ex- Officio Chief General Manager Raipur
Circe, Minor Forest Produce ( T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
6
6 - Conservator Of Forest/ Ex- Officio Chief General Manager Bastar
Circle, Minor Forest Produce ( T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd.
District Bastar Chhattisgarh
7 - Conservator Of Forest/ Ex- Officio Chief General Manager Kanker
Circle, Minor Forest Produce ( T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd.
District Kanker Chhattisgarh
8 - Managing Director/ Divisional Forest Officer ( D F O) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh
8 - Managing Director/ Divisional Forest Officer ( D F O) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, East Bhanupratappur, District Kanker
Chhattisgarh
9 - Managing Director/ Divisional Forest Officer ( D F O) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh
10 - Managing Director/ Divisional Forest Officer ( D F O) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District Sukuma Chhattisgarh
11 - Managing Director/ Divisional Forest Officer ( D F O) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh
12 - Managing Director/ Divisional Forest Officer ( D F O) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3509 of 2023
Yash Ketan Patel S/o Ketan Patel Aged About 23 Years R/o H. No. 59,
Vardhaman Nagar Society, Near Jain School, Rajnandgaon, District-
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner
7
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Forest,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board Through Chairman, Aranya
Bhawan, North Block, Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative
Federation Ltd. Through Managing Director, Van Dhan Bhawan, Sector-
24, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Conservator Of Forest/ Ex-Officio Chief General Manager Durg
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd.,
District Durg, Chhattisgarh
5 - Conservator Of Forest/ Ex- Officio Chief General Manager Kanker
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd.,
District Kanker, Chhattisgarh
6 - Managing Director/ Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union East Bhanupratappur, District Kanker,
Chhattisgarh
7 - Managing Director/ Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union West Bhanupratappur, District Kanker,
Chhattisgarh
8 - Managing Director/ Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh
8
9 - Managing Director/ Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District- Khairagarh, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3584 of 2023
1 - M/s Rahman Leaves Processor Through Partner Mr. Mohammed
Aussaaf Khaleel Ur Rahman S/o Mohammed Khaleel Ur Rahman Age-
28 Years, R/o - 11-23-1185, Lb Nagar, Near Bharath Gas Agency,
Warangal, District- Warangal, Telangana
2 - M/s Kareem Trading Company Through Proprietor Mrs. Nikhat
Fatima, W/o Md. Rasheed Ur Rahman Age- 55 Years, R/o - 11-23-
1177, Telecom Company, Lb Nagar, Warangal, District- Warangal,
Telengana.
3 - M/s Assurance And Company Through Proprietor Md. Ata Ur
Rahman S/o Md. Abdul Rahman Age- 45 Years, R/o - 11-23-1,
Opposite Learns Land High School, Lb Nagar, Warangal, District-
Warangal, Telengana.
4 - M/s Deccan Leaves Processor Through Proprietor Md. Azeez Ur
Rahman S/o Md. Abdul Rahman, Age- 50 Years, R/o House No. 1,
Jangalpur, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
5 - M/s Banu Tendu Patta Processor Through Proprietor Md. Faizan
Khaleel S/o Mohammed Khaleel Ur Rahman, Age- 24 Years, R/o
House No. 1, Jangalpur, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh.
6 - Md. Khaleel Ur Rahman S/o- Mohammed Abdur Ur Rahman Aged
About 60 Years R/o - 11-23-1185, Lb Nagar, Near Bharath Gas Agency,
Warangal, District- Warangal, Telangana
9
7 - M/s Royal Trade Link Through Proprietor Mr. Mohammed Aussaaf
Khaleel Ur Rahman S/o Mohammed Khaleel Ur Rahman Age- 28
Years, R/o - 11-23-1185, L B Nagar, Near Bharath Gas Agency,
Warangal, District- Warangal, Telangana
8 - M/s Crescent Trade Links Through Proprietor Mrs. Syeda Nasreen
Sultana W/o Mohammed Khaleel Ur Rahman Age- 55 Years, R/o - 11-
23-1185, L B Nagar, Near Bharath Gas Agency, Warangal, District-
Warangal, Telangana
9 - Md. Irshad Azeez Ur Rehman S/o Md. Azeez Ur Rahman Aged
About 26 Years R/o 11-13-215, O City In Front Of Masjid E Mansoorah,
Warangal, District- Warangal, Telengana.
10 - M/s Arif Enterprises Through Proprietor Md. Asmaul Hossain S/o
Md. Sabiruddin Sekh Age- 40 Years, R/o Kankuria, Purbodebidaspur,
District – Murshidabad, West Bengal.
11 - M. Satyanarayan Reddy S/o M. Ram Reddy Aged About 52 Years
R/o House No. 4-150/1, Vanalaxmi Nilayam, Janmabhoomi Nagar,
Near L I C Office, Mancherial, District- Mancherial, Telangana
12 - Koralla Raja Reddy S/o Koralla Narasimha Reddy Aged About 55
Years R/o House No. 4-150/1, J.B. Nagar, Opposite Nirmala Nursing
Home, Mancherial, District- Mancherial, Telangana.
13 - Ch. Jeevan Reddy S/o Ch. Surendher Reddy Aged About 35 Years
R/o Plot No. 1-4-72, Flat No. 301, R N R Residency, Street No. 8,
Habsiguda, Hyderabad, Telengana.
14 - V. Ram Reddy S/o Mr. Raji Reddy Aged About 80 Years R/o House
No. 12-903, Reddy Colony, Mancherial, District- Mancherial, Telengana.
10
15 - Md. Hifzur Rahman S/o Md. Abdul Rahman Aged About 45 Years
R/o - 11-23-1194 / A, Telecom Colony, L B Nagar, Warangal, District-
Warangal, Telengana.
16 - Farhath Begum W/o Mr. Hifzur Rahman Aged About 40 Years R/o -
11-23-1195, Telecom Colony, L B Nagar, Warangal, District- Warangal,
Telengana.
17 - K. Manimala W/o Kankanala Bhasker Reddy Aged About 50 Years
R/o House No. 12-903, Reddy Colony, Mancherial, Behind S B H,
District- Mancherial, Telengana.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Forest,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board Through Chairman, Aranya
Bhawan, North Block, Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative
Federation Ltd. Through Managing Director Van Dhan Bhawan, Sector-
24, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Conservator Of Forest / Ex- Officio Chief General Manager Raipur
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
11
5 - Conservator Of Forest / Ex- Officio Chief General Manager Kanker
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd,
District- Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
6 - Conservator Of Forest / Ex- Officio Chief General Manager Bilaspur
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
7 - Conservator Of Forest / Ex- Officio Chief General Manager Durg
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd,
District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
8 - Conservator Of Forest / Ex- Officio Chief General Manager
Jagdalpur Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative
Federation Ltd, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
9 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Keshkal, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
10 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Dharamjaigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
11 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh
12 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Bijapur, District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh
13 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Sukma, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh
12
14 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Narayanpur, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh
15 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, South Kondagaon, District : Kondagaon,
Chhattisgarh
16 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Gariyaband, District : Gariyabandh,
Chhattisgarh
17 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
18 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District : Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai,
Chhattisgarh
19 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, East Bhanupratappur, District- Uttar Bastar
Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
20 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, West Bhanupratappur, District- Uttar Bastar
Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
21 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Kanker, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker,
Chhattisgarh.
22 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
13
23 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
24 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham),
Chhattisgarh
25 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Balod, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3641 of 2023
M/s Roshan Enterprise, 20,. Armenian Street, Kolkata - 700001,
Through Power Of Attorney Holder Rajendra Kumar Jain, Age - 44
Years R/o 493/b/3, Gt Road, (South), 6th Floor, Flat - 607, Shibpur,
Haora (M.Corp). Howrah, District - Hawrah, West Bengal - 711102.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Forest,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board Through Chairman, Aranya
Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative
Federation Ltd Through Managing Director Van Dhan Bhawan, Sector-
24, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh
14
4 - Conservator Of Forest/ex-Officio Chief General Manager Kanker
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd.
District - Kanker, Chhattisgarh
5 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, East Bhanupratappur, District - Kanker,
Chhattisgarh.
6 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, West Bhanupratappur, District - Kanker,
Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3710 of 2023
M/s Anand Biri Factory, A Partnership Firm, Having Its Address At
Village Gobindapur, P.O. Tinpakuria, P.S. Samserganj, West Bengal,
Through Power Of Attorney Holder Manish Kedia, Son Of Shankar Lal
Kedia, Aged About 30 Years, Present Resident Of Ground Floor
Lakshmi Heights, Near Dhimrapur Chowk, Raigarh (C.G.)
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Forest,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board Through Chairman, Aranya
Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
15
3 - Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative
Federation Ltd. Through Managing Director Van Dhan Bhawan, Sector-
24, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Conservator Of Forest/ex Officio Chief General Manager Jagdalpur
Division, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd.
Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh
5 - Conservator Of Forest/ex-Officio Chief General Manager Raipur
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd.
District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh
6 - Conservator Of Forest/ex-Officio Chief General Manager Kanker
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd.
District - Kanker, Chhattisgarh
7 - Conservator Of Forest/ex-Officio Chief General Manager Bilaspur
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd.
District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
8 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District - Champa, Chhattisgarh
9 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District - West Bhanupratappur, Chhattisgarh
10 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District - Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh
11 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
16
12 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District - Sukma, Chhattisgarh
13 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh
14 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District - Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3731 of 2023
M/s Bhomiyaji Enterprises Ward No. 27, Ara Mashin Line,
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh- 491441 Through Authorized
Representative Rajendra Kumar Jain, Age - 44 Years, R/o 493 / B / 3,
G T Road (South), 6th Floor, Flat - 607, Shibpur, Haora (M.Corp).,
Howrah, District- Howrah, West Bengal- 711102.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Forest,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board Through Chairman, Aranya
Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative
Federation Ltd. Through Managing Director Van Dhan Bhawan, Sector-
24, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
17
4 - Conservator Of Forest / Ex-Officio Chief General Manager
Jagadalpur Division, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative
Federation Ltd. Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
5 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (D F O) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur),
Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3925 of 2023
M/s Mangelal Rishi Kumar Through Proprietor Mr. Rishi Kumar
Agrawal, S/o Late Mangelal Agrawal Age 64 Years, R/o Gulab Kunj,
Ganj Bazar, Kharsia, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board Through Chairman, Aranya
Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
3 - Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative
Federation Ltd Through Managing Director Van Dhan Bhawan, Sector-
24, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Conservator Of Forest/ex-Officio Chief General Manager Bastar
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd.
District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
18
5 - Conservator Of Forest/ex-Officio Chief General Manager Kanker
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd.
District Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
6 - Conservator Of Forest/ex-Officio Chief General Manager Bilaspur
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd.,
District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
7 - Conservator Of Forest/ex-Officio Chief General Manager Sarguja
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd.,
District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
8 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Sukma, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh.
9 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Keshkal, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
10 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
11 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
12 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Jashpur Nagar, Disrict Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3594 of 2023
M/s M Shaymsunder Reddy Through Proprietor Muppidi Shyam Sunder
Reddy S/o Late Muppidi Narsimha Reddy Age - 64 Years, R/o 2-2-504,
New Kishan Pura, Hanamkonda, District - Warangal, Telengana
19
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Forest,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board Through Chairman, Aranya
Bhawan, North Block, Sector -19, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative
Federation Ltd Through Managing Director Van Dhan Bhawan, Sector -
24, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Conservator Of Forest/ex-Offico Chief General Manager Jagdalpur
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd.
District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh
5 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District - Bijapur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3557 of 2023
M/s Abc Traders Through Proprietor Mohammad Ali, S/o Mohammad
Amjad Ali, Age 26 Years, R/o House No. 2-3-97, Faran Street, Chintal
Basti, Pedapalli, District- Pedapalli, Telengana.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
20
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Forest,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board Through Chairman, Aranya
Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Chhattisgarh State, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative
Federation Ltd. Through Managing Director, Van Dhan Bhawan, Sector-
24, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Conservator Of Forest/ Ex-Officio Chief General Manager Bastar
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd.,
District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Conservator Of Forest/ Ex-Officio Chief General Manager Kanker
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd.,
District- Kanker Chhattisgarh.
6 - Managing Director/ Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Bijapur, District- Bijapur, Chhattisgarh.
7 - Managing Director/ Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, West Bhanupratappur, District- Kanker,
Chhattisgarh
8 - Managing Director/ Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Dantewada, District- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3567 of 2023
M/s Desai Brothers Limited, Through Power Of Attorney Holder Mr.
Nagin Bhai Patel, S/o. Late Shankar Bhai Patel Age -50 Years R/o.
21
G.E. Road, Near Raipur, Naka, Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Forest,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board, Through Chairman, Aranya
Bhawan, North Block, Sector -19, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
3 - Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co- Operative
Federation Limited, Through Managing Director Van Dhan Bhawan,
Sector -24, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Conservator Of Forest /ex- Offico Chief General Manager, Sarguja
Nagar Circle, Minor Forest Produce ( T And D), Co-Operative
Federation Limited, District - Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Conservator Of Forest /ex - Offico Chief General Manager Raipur
Circle, Raipur Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D), Co-Operative
Federation Limited, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
6 - Conseravtor Of Forest / Ex - Officio Chief General Manager, Kanker
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D), Co -Operative Federation
Limited, District - Uttar Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
7 - Conservator Of Forest /ex - Offico Chief General Manager, Bilaspur
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D), Co -Operative Federation
Limited, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
22
8 - Conservator Of Forest / Ex- Offico Chief General Manager, Durg
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D), Co -Operative Federation
Limited, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh.
9 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Katghora, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.
10 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Dharamjaigarh, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
11 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Raigarh, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
12 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Balodabazar, District - Balodabazar -
Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
13 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh.
14 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Sarguja, District - Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
15 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.
16 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Gariyaband , District -Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.
17 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
23
18 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Khairagarh, District – Khairagarh - Chhuikhadan
- Gendai, Chhattisgarh.
19 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), District Minor
Forest Produce Union, East Bhanupratappur, District - Uttar Bastar
Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
20 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), District Minor
Forest Produce Union, West Bhanupratappur, District - Uttar Bastar
Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
21 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Kanker, District - Uttar Bastar Kanker,
Chhattisgarh.
22 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Surajpur, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3563 of 2023
M/s Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel And Co Through Power Of Attorney
Holder Mr. Bihari Lal Sonwane S/o Late Narayan Sonwane, Age- 67
Years, R/o House No. 34/2, Ward No. 14, Gouri Nagar, Street No. 1,
District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Forest,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh
24
2 - Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board Through Chairman, Aranya
Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative
Federation Ltd. Through Managing Director Van Dhan Bhawan, Sector
- 24, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Conservator Of Forest / Ex-Officio Chief General Manager Jashpur
Nagar Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation
Ltd, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
5 - Conservator Of Forest / Ex-Officio Chief General Manager Bilaspur
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd.,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
6 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (D F O) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Baikunthpur, District - Korea, Chhattisgarh
7 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (D F O) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District : Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur,
Chhattisgarh
8 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (D F O) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur),
Chhattisgarh
9 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (D F O) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
10 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (D F O) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh
25
11 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (D F O) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Marwahi, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi,
Chhattisgarh
12 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (D F O) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Katghora, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
13 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (D F O) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3769 of 2023
M/s Usuf Trading Company Through Partner Md. Usuf Ali, S/o Layek Ali
Age 36 Years, R/o Shivmandir, Dhuliyan, Jangipur, District
Murshidabad, West Bengal.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board Through Chairman, Aranya
Bhawan, North Block, Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
3 - Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative
Federation Ltd. Through Managing Director Van Dhan Bhawan, Sector-
24, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
26
4 - Conservator Of Forest/ex-Officio Chief General Manager Raipur,
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd.
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Conservator Of Forest/ex-Officio Chief General Manager Kanker
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd.
District Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
6 - Managing Director/ Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh.
7 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3659 of 2023
M/s Lado Enterprises Ward No. 25, Ramdhin Marg, Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh - 491441 Through Authorized Representative Rajendra
Kuma Jain, Age - 44 Years, R/o 493/ B/ 3, G T Road (South), 6th Floor,
Flat - 607, Shibpur, Haora (M. Corp), Howrah, District - Howrah, West
Bengal - 711102.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Forest,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board, Through Chairman, Aranya
Bhawan, North Block, Sector - 19, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
27
3 - Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce ( T And D) Co-Operative
Federation Ltd, Through Managing Director, Van Dhan Bhawan, Sector
- 24, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Conservator Of Forest/ Ex- Officio Chief General Manager Kanker
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd,
District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
5 - Conservator Of Forest/ Ex- Officio Chief General Manager
Jagdalpur Division, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative
Federation Ltd, Jagdalpur District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
6 - Managing Director/ Divisional Forest Officer (D.F.O) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Keshkal, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
7 - Managing Director/ Divisional Forest Officer (D.F.O.) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3781 of 2023
M/s Sunrise Traders Through Proprietor Mrs. Seema Agrawal, W/o-
Subhash Chandra Agrawal, Age- 56 Years, R/o - Rani Sati Marg, Ward
No. 14, Kharsiya, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
28
2 - Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board Through Chairman, Aranya
Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative
Federation Ltd. Through Managing Director Van Dhan Bhawan, Sector-
24, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Conservator Of Forest / Ex-Officio Chief General Manager Jashpur
Nagar Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation
Ltd., District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
5 - Conservator Of Forest / Ex-Officio Chief General Manager Bilaspur
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd.,
District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
6 - Conservator Of Forest / Ex-Officio Chief General Manager Raipur
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd.,
District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
7 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (D F O) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Korba, District -Korba, Chhattisgarh
8 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (D F O) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Jashpur Nagar, District -Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
9 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (D F O) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Mahasamund, District -Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh
10 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (D F O) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Raigarh, District -Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
29
11 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (D F O) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Korba, District -Korba, Chhattisgarh
12 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (D F O) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Dharamjaigarh, District -Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3784 of 2023
1 - M/s Super Leaves Processors Through Proprietor Sonam Jain, D/o.
Late Sunil Jain, Age - 35 Years, R/o. Besides Princess Park Apartment,
Neelgiri Park, Off G.E. Road, District - Rajnandgaon. Chhattisgarh.
2 - M/s S.S. Beedi Leaves, Through Proprietor Satendra Singh, S/o.
Late Hariwans Singh, Age - 49 Years, R/o. Panki, Palamu, District -
Palamu, Jharkhand.
3 - M/s Tamilnadu Beedi Leaves Co. Through Proprietor Avoor
Mohammed Talha S/o. A. Ateequr Rahman, Age - 35 Years, R/o. 44/1,
Goodanagaram Road, Thalayatham Bazaar, Santhapet District -
Vellore, Tamil Nadu.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board Through Chairman, Aranya
Bhawan, North Block, Sector -19, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
30
3 - Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co - Operative
Federation Limited, Through Managing Director Van Dhan Bhawan,
Sector - 24, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Conseravator Of Forest / Ex Officio Chief General Manager, Baster
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D), Co - Operative Federation
Limited, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Conservator Of Forest / Ex - Officio Chief General Manager Kanker
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D), Co - Operative Federation
Limited, District - Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
6 - Conservator Of Forest / Ex - Officio Chief General Manager Raipur
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D), Co - Operative Federation
Limited, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
7 - Conservator Of Forest / Ex - Officio Chief General Manager Durg
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D), Co - Operative Federation
Limited, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh.
8 - Conservator Of Forest / Ex - Officio Chief General Manager Bilaspur
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D), Co - Operative Federation
Limited, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
9 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Bijapur, District - Bijapur, Chhattisgarh.
10 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
11 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh.
31
12 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Sukma, District - Sukma, Chhattisgarh.
13 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Raigarh, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
14 - Manging Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.
15 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Kanker, District - Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
16 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Keshkal, District - Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
17 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), District Minor
Forest Produce Union, South Kondagaon, District - Kondagaon,
Chhattisgarh.
18 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Dantewada, District - Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 4249 of 2023
1 - M/s Sadat Traders Through Power Of Attorney Holder Md. Mujeer
S/o Late Md. Fayaz Age- 42 Years C/o Sadat Traders, House No. 299,
Syedwadi, Channapatna, District- Ramnagram, Karnataka
2 - M/s Saffi Traders Through Power Of Attorney Holder Md. Mujeer S/o
Late Md. Fayaz Age- 42 Years C/o Saffi Traders, House No. 299,
Syedwadi, Channapatna, District- Ramnagram, Karnataka
32
3 - M/s Kaleem Traders Through Power Of Attorney Holder Idyathulla
Khan, S/o Late Shabbir Ali Khan, Age- 42 Years C/o Kaleem Traders,
House No. 299, Syedwadi, Channapatna, District- Ramnagram,
Karnataka
4 - M/s Rahamat Traders Through Power Of Attorney Holder Idyathulla
Khan S/o Late Shabbir Ali Khan Age- 42 Years C/o Rahamat Traders,
House No. 299, Syedwadi, Channapatna, District- Ramnagram,
Karnataka
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board Through Chairman, Aranya
Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative
Federation Ltd Through Managing Director Van Dhan Bhawan, Sector-
24, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Conservator Of Forest/ Ex-Officio Chief General Manager Raipur
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd,
District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
5 - Conservator Of Forest/ Ex-Officio Chief General Manager Durg
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd,
District- Durg, Chhattisgarh
33
6 - Conservator Of Forest/ Ex- Officio Chief General Manager Bilaspur
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd,
District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
7 - Managing Director/ Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
8 - Managing Director/ Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh
9 - Managing Director/ Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
10 - Managing Director/ Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 4314 of 2023
1 - M/s Kesireddy Malla Reddy Through Proprietor Mr. Kesireddy Malla
Reddy S/o. Late Kesireddy Krishna Reddy Age -72 Years. R/o. House
No. 501, Block H, Indu Aranya, Bandlaguda, Near Gsi, District -
Rangareddy, Telangana,
2 - Potu Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Late Potu Damodar Reddy, Aged About
55 Years R/o. 5-10-188, House No. 101, Kalpana Towers, Hill Fort
Road, Javed Maskan Lane, Khairabhad, District -Hyderabad,
Telangana.
3 - Deepthi Reddy K. D/o. Kesireddy Malla Reddy, Aged About 39 Years
R/o. House No. 501, Block H, Indu Aranya, Bandlaguda, Near Gsi,
District -Rangareddy, Telangana.
34
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District -Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board, Through Chairman, Aranya
Bhawan, North Block, Sector -19, Atal Nagar, District -Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
3 - Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative
Federation Ltd. Through Managing Director Van Dhan Bhawan, Sector
24, Atal Nagar, District -Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Conservator Of Forest /ex-Officio Chief General Manager Kanker
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D), Co-Operative Federation Ltd,
District -Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Conservator Of Forest /ex-Offico Chief General Manager Durg
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D), Co-Operative Federation Ltd,
District -Durg, Chhattisgarh.
6 - Conservator Of Forest /ex-Offico Chief General Manager Jagdalpur
Circle, Minor Forest (T And D), Co-Operative Federation Ltd, District -
Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
7 - Conservator Of Forest /ex-Officio Chief General Manager Raipur
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D), Co-Operative Federation Ltd,
District -Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
35
8 - Managing Director /divisional Forest Officer (DFO), District - Minor
Forest Produce Union, East, Bhanupratappur, District - Kanker,
Chhattisgarh.
9 - Managing Director /divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District -Minor
Forest Produce Union, West Bhanupratappur, District - Kanker,
Chhattisgarh.
10 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO), District -Minor
Forest Produce Union, Khairagarh, District -Khairagarh-Chhuikhandan -
Gandai,, Chhattisgarh.
11 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO), District -Minor
Forest Produce Union, Bijapur, District -Bijapur, Chhattisgarh.
12 - Managing Director /divisional Forest Officer (DFO), District -Minor
Forest Produce Union, Sukma, District -Sukma, Chhattisgarh.
13 - Managing Director /divisional Forest Offier (DFO), District -Minor
Forest Produce Union, Kanker, District -Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
14 - Managing Director /divisoinal Forest Officer (DFO), District -Minor
Forest Produce Union, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh.
15 - Managing Director /divisonal Forest Officer (DFO), District -Minor
Forest Produce Union, Gariyaband, District -Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3283 of 2023
1 - M/s Asma Natural Product Pvt. Ltd., A Company Registered Under
Relevant Provision Of Law, Having Its Address House No. 44/19,
36
Mission Hospital Road, Bilaspur, Through Power Of Attorney Holder
Bhuvan Pal Singh Rathore, Son Of Narendra Singh Rathore, Resident
Of Tilak Nagar, Bilaspur
2 - M/s Afaque Traders A Proprietorship Firm, Having Its Address At
House No. 44/19, Mission Hospital Road, Bilaspur, Through Power Of
Attorney Holder Bhuvan Pal Singh Rathore, Son Of Narendra Singh
Rathore, Resident Of Tilak Nagar, Bilaspur
3 - M/s Jeet Biri Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. A Partnership Firm, Having
Its Address At Dhuliya, Pakur Road, P.S. Samserganj, Murshidabad,
West Bengal, Through Power Of Attorney Holder Tufan Sekh, Son Of
Late Sentu, Resident Of Village Lalpur, P.O. Dhuliyan, P.S.
Samserganj, District Murshidabad, West Bengal.
4 - M/s N.B. Tobacco Stores A Partnership Firm, Having Its Address At
Dhuliya, Pakur Road,murshidabad, West Bengal, Through Power Of
Attorney Holder Tufan Sekh, Son Of Late Sentu, Resident Of Village
Lalpur, P.O. Dhuliyan, P.S. Samserganj, District Murshidabad, West
Bengal.
5 - M/s 02 India Private Limited A Partnership Firm, Having Its Address
At Dhuliya, Pakur Road, Murshidabad, West Bengal, Through Power Of
Attorney Holder Tufan Sekh, Son Of Late Sentu, Resident Of Village
Lalpur, P.O. Dhuliyan, P.S. Samserganj, District Murshidabad, West
Bengal.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Forest,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh
37
2 - Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board Through Chairman, Aranya
Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co - Operative
Fedeation Ltd. Through Managing Director Van Dhan Bhawan, Sector -
24, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgrh
4 - Conservator Of Forest / Ex. - Officio Chief General Manager
Jagdalpur Division, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co - Operative
Federation Ltd, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh
5 - Conservator Of Forest / Ex - Officio Chief General Manager Raipur
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co - Operative Federation Ltd,
District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh
6 - Conservator Of Forest / Ex - Officeo Chief General Manager Kanker
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co - Operative Federation Ltd,
District - Kanker, Chhattisgarh
7 - Conservator Of Forest / Ex- Officio Chief General Manager Surguja
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co - Operative Federation Ltd,
District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh
8 - Conservator Of Forest / Ex.- Officio Chief General Manager Durg
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co - Operative Federation Ltd,
District - Durg, Chhattisgarh
9 - Conservator Of Forest / Ex.- Officio Chief General Manager Bilaspur
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co - Operative Federation Ltd,
District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
38
10 - Managing Director/divisinoal Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District - Marwahi, Chhattisgarh
11 - Managing Director/divisinoal Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District - Katghora, Chhattisgarh
12 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District - Khairagarh, Chhattisgarh
13 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh
14 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District -Mahendragarh, Chhattisgarh
15 - Managing Director/divisinoal Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District - Korea, Chhattisgarh
16 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District - Jashpur Nagar, Chhattisgarh
17 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
18 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District - East Bhanupratappur, Chhattisgarh
19 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District - West Bhanupratappur, Chhattisgarh
20 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
39
21 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
22 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
23 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh
24 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District - Dharamjaigarh, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 1936 of 2023
1 - M/s Himalayan Trading Co. Through Proprietor Mrs Suman
Sonchhatra W/o Harish Sonchhatra Age -57 Years, R/o Shop No. 6,
Neeraj Patel Godown Campus, Near Hanuman Mandir, Raipur Naka,
District Rajnandgaon, Chhattigsarh.
2 - M/s. Evergreen Trading Co. Through Proprietor Mrs Asha
Sonchhatra W/o Pramod Kumar Sonchhatra Age-66 Years R/o Shop
No. 6, Neeraj Patel Godown Campus, Near Hanuman Mandir, Raipur
Naka, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattigsarh.
3 - M/s Harshit Sonchhatra Through Proprietor Mr. Harshit Sonchhatra
S/o Harish Sonchhatra Age -32 Years R/o Shop No. 6, Neeraj Patel
Godown Campus, Near Hanuman Mandir, Raipur Naka, District
Rajnandgaon, Chhattigsarh.
4 - M/s Musrlidhar Dewangan Through Proprietor Mr. Murlidhar
Dewangan S/o Late Bhagwandin Dewangan Age - 55 Years R/o Shop
40
No. 6, Neeraj Patel Godown Campus, Near Hanuman Mandir, Raipur
Naka, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattigsarh.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board Through Chairman, Aranya
Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative
Federation Ltd Through Managing Director Van Dhan Bhawan, Sector -
24, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Conservator Of Forest/ex Officio Chief General Manger, Durg Circle
Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co -Operative Federation Ltd, District :
Durg, Chhattisgarh
5 - Conservator Of Forest/ex-Officio Chief General Manager Raipur
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd,,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
6 - Conservator Of Forest/ex-Officio Chief General Manager Kanker
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd,,
District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
7 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
41
8 - Managing Director/ Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
9 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, East Bhanupratappur, District Kanker,
Chhattisgarh.
10 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District Khairagarh, Chhattisgarh.
11 - Managing Director/divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union,, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3643 of 2023
M/s Ankit Traders 56, Etapalli Road, Near Old Post Office, Allapali,
District- Gadchiroli, Maharashtra- 442703 Through Authorized
Representative Rajendra Kumar Jain, Age- 44 Years, R/o 493/b/3, Gt
Road (South), 6th Floor, Flat- 607, Shibpur, Haora (M. Corp)., Howrah,
West Bengal- 711102
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Forest,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board Through Chairman, Aranya
Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
42
3 - Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative
Federation Ltd. Through Managing Director Van Dhan Bhawan, Sector-
24, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Conservator Of Forest/ex-Officio Chief General Manager Raipur
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd,
District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
5 - Conservator Of Forest/ex-Officio Chief General Manager Kanker
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd,
District- Kanker (Chhattisgarh)
6 - Managing Director/ Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Narayanpur, District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh
7 - Managing Director/ Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District- Dhamtari Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 4209 of 2023
1 - M/s Jitendra Kumar Jain Through Proprietor Jitendra Kumar Jain,
S/o Late Bachan Lal Jain, Age 67 Years, R/o Mahal Colony, Mahal
Road, District - Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh
2 - Nehza Elnaz Trading Company Through Proprietor Suraiya Pravin,
D/o Gholam Rasoul Age - 24 Years, R/o G.E. Road, Raipur Naka Fci
Road, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
3 - Godishala Rajamalla Reddy S/o Lachi Reddy Godishala Aged About
54 Years R/o 3-11-59, Reddy Colony, Hanamkonda, District - Warangal,
Telangana
43
4 - G. Praveen Kumar S/o Bapu Reddy Aged About 36 Years R/o 2-1,
Sirsa, Kotapalle, Adilabad, District - Adilabad, Telangana
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board Through Chairman Aranya
Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative
Federation Ltd Through Managing Director Van Dhan Bhawan, Sector-
24, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Conservetor Of Forest/ Ex-Officio Chief General Manager Raipur
Circle, Minor Forest Procduce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
5 - Conservator Of Forest / Ex-Officio Chief General Manager Durg
Circle, Minor Forest Procduce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd.
District Durg, Chhattisgarh
6 - Conservator Of Forest / Ex-Officio Chief General Manager Bilaspur
Circle, Minor Forest Procduce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd.
District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
7 - Conservator Of Forest / Ex Officio Chief General Manager Kanker
Circle, Minor Forest Procduce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd.
District Kanker, Chhattisgarh
44
8 - Conservator Of Forest/ex-Officio Chief General Manager Jashpur
Circle, Minor Forest Procduce (T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd.
District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
9 - Managing Diretor / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union Kawardha, District - Kawardha, Chhattisgarh
10 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union West Bhanupratappur, District - Kanker,
Chhattisgarh
11 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh
12 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
13 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union Janjgir - Champa,, District - Janjgir-Champa,
Chhattisgarh
14 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union Katghora, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh
15 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union Surajpur, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
16 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh
45
17 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union East Bhanupratappur, District - Kanker,
Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3342 of 2023
Kishan Biri Manufacturing Company Through Authorized
Representative Mr. Prasanta Kumar Saha S/o. Shyama Charan Saha
Age - 52 Years R/o. Post - Dhuliyan, District - Murshidabad, West
Bengal.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through secretary, Department of Forest,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board, Through Chairman, Aranya
Bhawan, North Block, Sector - 19, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
3 - Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T And D) Co-Operative
Federation Limited. Through Managing Director Van Dhan Bhawan,
Sector -24, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Conservator Of Forest / Ex - Offico Chief General Manager, Raipur
Circle, Minor Forest Produce ( T And D), Co -Operative Federation
Limited, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Conservator Of Forest / Ex - Offico Chief General Manager, Kanker
Circle, Minor Forest Produce (T And D), Co -Operative Federation
Limited, District - Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
46
6 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), District - Minor
Forest Produce Union, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
7 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District - Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
8 - Managing Director / Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), District - Minor
Forest Produce Union, District - Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3406 of 2023
Saha Brothers Biri Works Pvt Ltd. Through Authorized Representative
Mr. Prasanta Kumar Saha S/o Shyama Charan Saha Age 56 Years, R/o
Post- Dhuliyan, District Murshidabad, West Bengal.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Forest,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board Through Chairman, Aranya
Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, District Raipur
(Chhattisgarh)
3 - Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce ( T And D) Co-Operative
Federation Ltd. Through Managing Director Van Dhan Bhawan, Sector-
24, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
4 - Conservator Of Forest/ Ex-Officio Chief General Manager Bilaspur
Circle, Minor Forest Produce ( T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd.,
District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
47
5 - Conservator Of Forest/ Ex-Officio Chief General Manager Raipur
Circle, Minor Forest Produce ( T And D) Co-Operative Federation Ltd.,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
6 - Managing Director/ Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.
7 - Managing Director/ Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
8 - Managing Director/ Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) District Minor
Forest Produce Union, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Respective Petitioners :Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Siddharth Shukla,
Advocate, Mr. Amrito Das, Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Ankur
Agrawal and Ms. Akansha Jain,
Advocates
For State :Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional
Advocate General
For Respective Respondents :Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Mr. Jitendra Pali,
Mr. Trivikram Nayak and Mr. Siddharth
Tiwari, Advocates
Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge
CAV Order
1.Since all the writ petitions in the present batch involve
substantially identical questions of fact and law, challenge the
same administrative action of the respondent authorities and
48
arise out of a common factual and legal background, they were
heard analogously with the consent of the learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties and are being disposed of by
this common order.
2.The core controversy involved in these writ petitions relates to the
legality and validity of the action of the respondent authorities in
directing recovery of 2% Access and Benefit Sharing (for short,
‘ABS’) from the purchase price of Tendu Forest Lots allotted to
the petitioners under the provisions of the Biological Diversity Act,
2002 (for short, ‘Act, 2002’), the Chhattisgarh Biological Diversity
Rules, 2015 (for short, ‘Rules, 2015’), and the Guidelines on
Access to Biological Resources and Associated Knowledge and
Benefit Sharing Regulations, 2014 (for short, ‘Regulations,
2014’). The challenge in all these petitions is directed against the
Order dated 24.01.2023 issued by respondent No.2/Chhattisgarh
State Biodiversity Board and the consequential Letter dated
25.01.2023, whereby the respondent authorities authorized
recovery of 2% ABS from the successful purchasers of Tendu
Forest Lots and directed the concerned Divisional Forest
Officers-cum-Managing Directors of the District Minor Forest
Produce Co-operative Unions to obtain the prescribed forms and
agreements from the purchasers and to realize 2% of the
purchase price towards Access and Benefit Sharing for deposit
with the Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board. The petitioners
contend, inter alia, that they are purchasers of Tendu Forest Lots
49
through public auction conducted by the Chhattisgarh State Minor
Forest Produce (Trading and Development) Co-operative
Federation (for short, ‘Federation’) and do not directly procure
Tendu Leaves from forest dwellers, tribal collectors, primary
minor forest produce co-operative societies or Gram Sabhas.
3.According to the petitioners, the entire process relating to
collection, procurement, storage and sale of Tendu Leaves in the
State of Chhattisgarh is exclusively governed by the provisions of
the Chhattisgarh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam,
1964 (for short, ‘Adhiniyam, 1964’), under which the State
exercises complete control over the trade in Tendu Leaves. It is
their specific case that they merely purchase Tendu Forest Lots
from the State through the statutory auction process and,
therefore, there is no direct access to biological resources or
associated knowledge so as to attract the provisions relating to
Access and Benefit Sharing under the Act, 2002, the Rules, 2015
or the Regulations, 2014. The petitioners further contend that
Rule 17(4) of the Rules, 2015 and Clause 3 of the Regulations,
2014 are wholly inapplicable to their transactions and,
consequently, they are not liable to pay the impugned 2% ABS
amount. They also submit that the levy is dehors the contractual
stipulations governing the allotment of Tendu Forest Lots for the
relevant auction year and cannot be retrospectively enforced by
insertion of Clause 15-B of the Regulations, 2014 through
subsequent executive instructions.
50
4.Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 24.01.2023 and
consequential letter dated 25.01.2023, the petitioners have
questioned their legality and validity by filing the present batch of
writ petitions.
5.Since the pleadings, the questions involved, the statutory
provisions requiring interpretation, the nature of challenge, the
reliefs claimed and the submissions advanced on behalf of the
parties are substantially identical in all the connected matters, all
these writ petitions were heard analogously and are being
decided by this common judgment. The principal issue for
determination in every petition is whether the respondent
authorities are legally justified in recovering 2% ABS from the
petitioners in respect of Tendu Forest Lots purchased through the
statutory auction mechanism.
6.Considering the commonality of issues, W.P.(C) No. 1457 of 2023
has been treated as the lead case for the purpose of narration of
facts and adjudication. The decision rendered in the lead matter
shall govern all the connected writ petitions, subject to any
distinguishing facts, if any. It is also pertinent to note that during
the pendency of these petitions, this Court had granted interim
protection to the petitioners. Since the tenders for the subsequent
auction year had already been finalized and the Forest Lots had
been allotted in favour of the petitioners, this Court, taking note of
the common challenge involved, restrained the respondents from
51
making recovery of the impugned 2% Access and Benefit Sharing
amount under the Act, 2002 and the Regulations, 2014 till further
orders. For the sake of convenience, the relief sought by the
petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 1457 of 2023 is extracted hereinbelow:-
“i. To Set-Aside the Order dated 24th January
2023 and Letter dated 25th January 2023
issued by Respondent No.2 being bad in law
and contrary to Regulations, 2014.
ii. Pass any other relief/order or direction, as
this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper
looking to the facts and circumstance of the
case in the interest of justice.”
7.The brief facts, shorn of unnecessary details, giving rise to the
present batch of writ petitions are that the petitioners are
traders/contractors engaged in the business of procurement and
processing of Tendu Leaves (Tendu Patta), which constitute one
of the most important Minor Forest Produce in the State of
Chhattisgarh. Tendu Leaves are abundantly available in the forest
areas predominantly inhabited by Scheduled Tribes and other
traditional forest dwellers and constitute a major source of
livelihood for thousands of tribal families. The collection of Tendu
Leaves is undertaken by local pluckers through the machinery
established by the State Government and the Federation, which
is entrusted with the procurement, management and disposal of
the said minor forest produce. The revenue generated from the
sale of Tendu Leaves is utilized not only for payment of wages to
52
the pluckers but also for distribution of profits amongst the tribal
collectors, primary societies, district unions and the Federation in
accordance with the policy framed by the State Government.
8.The petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions are
successful bidders to whom different Forest Lots situated in
various districts of the State, including Sukma, Kondagaon,
Kanker, Gariaband, Korba, Khairagarh, Rajnandgaon and other
districts, were allotted pursuant to public auction conducted by
the Federation for the collection years 2022 and 2023. Upon
acceptance of their bids, allotment orders were issued in favour
of the respective petitioners and purchaser's agreements were
executed between the concerned Divisional Forest Officers acting
on behalf of the Federation and the successful bidders. Under the
contractual arrangement, the petitioners acquire the right to
receive the Tendu Leaves comprised in the allotted Forest Lots
upon payment of the bid amount and are thereafter required to
undertake the processes necessary for making the leaves
commercially marketable.
9.According to the petitioners, the procurement mechanism
followed by the Federation is materially different from a direct
purchase of biological resources from forest dwellers or tribal
cultivators. The Tendu Leaves are initially procured by the
Federation and its district-level authorities from the village-level
collectors through the statutory procurement system established
53
by the State Government. It is only after such procurement that
the Forest Lots are put to public auction and allotted to the
successful bidders. Consequently, the petitioners contend that
they do not enter into any contractual relationship with the tribal
collectors, Gram Sabhas, Joint Forest Management Committees
or forest dwellers, nor do they purchase Tendu Leaves directly
from them. Their contractual relationship is exclusively with the
Federation and its officers under the terms of the auction and
purchaser's agreement.
10.It is further the case of the petitioners that the Tendu Leaves
received from the Federation are not immediately fit for
commercial use in the manufacture of beedis. The green leaves
supplied to the petitioners are incapable of being directly utilized
for beedi manufacturing and are required to undergo an elaborate
process of value addition. After taking delivery, the petitioners
undertake a series of operations including pruning, drying,
sprinkling of water, weathering, preservation, application of
insecticides, sun-drying, rinsing, bundling and packing in jute
bags under prescribed conditions. It is only upon completion of
these processes that the leaves acquire the requisite texture,
flexibility, durability, flavour and fire-retaining capacity necessary
for the manufacture of beedis and become commercially
marketable. According to the petitioners, by virtue of such
extensive processing, the Tendu Leaves are transformed into
value-added products, thereby taking them outside the ambit of
54
the expression "biological resources" as defined under Section
2(c) of the Act, 2002.
11.The petitioners further plead that while the Act, 2002, the Rules,
2015 and the Regulations, 2014 regulate access to biological
resources and provide for equitable sharing of benefits arising
from their commercial utilization, the statutory framework
primarily contemplates situations where biological resources are
accessed or procured directly from local communities, forest
dwellers, tribal cultivators or similar stakeholders. According to
the petitioners, since the Federation itself procures the Tendu
Leaves from the collectors and thereafter auctions the Forest
Lots, the petitioners do not fall within the category of persons
upon whom the obligation of ABS can legally be imposed.
12.It is the further case of the petitioners that although the State
Government approved insertion of Clause 15-B in the purchaser's
agreement requiring compliance with the provisions of the Act,
2002 and the Rules, 2015, the said clause was admittedly not
incorporated in the original agreements executed for the
collection year 2022. Nevertheless, the respondent authorities
subsequently issued communications directing execution of
supplementary agreements and thereafter proceeded to enforce
the said clause in respect of the contracts already concluded. The
petitioners contend that such unilateral incorporation of
contractual obligations after execution of the agreements is
55
legally impermissible and cannot form the basis for recovery of
any amount from them.
13.The immediate cause for filing the present batch of writ petitions
arose when the Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board issued the
Order dated 24.01.2023, declaring certain forest officers as
"Authorized Officers" under Rule 17(4) of the Rules, 2015 and
directing them to recover 2% ABS from the purchase price of the
Forest Lots allotted to the petitioners. The said order was
followed by a detailed communication dated 25.01.2023,
prescribing the manner in which Clause 15-B of the Rules, 2015
was to be incorporated in the purchaser's agreements and
directing recovery and deposit of the ABS amount with the State
Biodiversity Board. Pursuant thereto, the concerned Divisional
Forest Officers initiated steps for deduction and recovery of the
aforesaid amount from the petitioners.
14.Aggrieved by the aforesaid order and consequential
communications, the petitioners in all the connected writ petitions
have approached this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The principal challenge in
the entire batch of petitions is to the legality, validity and
enforceability of the Order dated 24.01.2023 and Letter dated
25.01.2023, whereby recovery of 2% ABS has been directed from
the purchase price of Tendu Forest Lots.
56
15.The petitioners contend that the impugned action is contrary to
the provisions of the Act, 2002, the Rules, 2015 and the
Regulations, 2014; that they are neither direct purchasers of
biological resources from forest dwellers nor persons covered by
Regulation 3 of the Regulations, 2014; that the Tendu Leaves
handled by them constitute value-added products after
undergoing extensive processing; that the levy sought to be
imposed has no statutory sanction in the facts of the case; and
that, in any event, no such liability could have been
retrospectively fastened upon them for the contracts relating to
the collection year 2022 in the absence of any contractual
stipulation authorizing such recovery.
16.Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.
Siddharth Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respective
petitioners, submits that the entire foundation of the impugned
order dated 24.01.2023 and the consequential letter dated
25.01.2023 proceeds on a complete misconception of the
scheme of the Act, 2002, the Rules, 2015 and the Regulations,
2014. According to him, the sole controversy in the present batch
of writ petitions is a narrow one, namely, whether the State
Biodiversity Board could invoke Clause 3 of the Regulations,
2014 and direct recovery of 2% ABS from the petitioners merely
because they purchase Tendu Forest Lots through a statutory
auction conducted by Respondent No.3. Learned Senior Counsel
submits that the constitutional validity of the Act, 2002 or the
57
concept of Access and Benefit Sharing is not under challenge.
The petitioners have confined their challenge to the jurisdiction of
the respondent authorities to invoke Clause 3 of the Regulations
in the facts of the present cases.
17.Elaborating his submissions, learned Senior Counsel contends
that the entire trade of Tendu Leaf in the State of Chhattisgarh is
governed by the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1964, which
creates a complete statutory code regulating procurement,
storage, transportation, auction and disposal of Tendu Leaves. By
virtue of Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 12 of the Adhiniyam, 1964, the
State Government, acting through its statutory agent, i.e.
Federation alone is authorized to procure Tendu Leaves from
forest dwellers and tribal collectors, determine the procurement
price, pay wages to the collectors and thereafter dispose of the
Forest Lots by way of public auction. It is submitted that the
petitioners enter into the statutory chain only after the
procurement process is complete and their contractual
relationship commences only upon allotment of the Forest Lots
by Respondent No.3. Consequently, the petitioners neither
negotiate with nor purchase Tendu Leaves directly from forest
dwellers, Gram Sabhas, Tribal Cultivators or Joint Forest
Management Committees, but merely purchase Government
auction lots under the statutory mechanism.
58
18.Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioners do
not commercially exploit raw biological resources as
contemplated under the Act, 2002. According to him, after taking
delivery of the green Tendu Leaves from the Government
authorities, the petitioners undertake an elaborate process
involving drying, weathering, sprinkling of water, insect protection,
sun-drying, rinsing, bundling, packing and preservation before the
leaves become fit for transportation and eventual use in the
manufacture of beedis. The said processes substantially enhance
the commercial utility, quality and characteristics of the leaves,
thereby converting them into value-added products, which,
according to the petitioners, stand excluded from the definition of
"biological resources" under Section 2(c) of the Act, 2002. Thus,
the very premise on which the respondents seek to invoke the
ABS mechanism is stated to be legally unsustainable.
19.It is next contended that the Act, 2002 is not a charging statute
creating an automatic liability to pay Access and Benefit Sharing
in every commercial transaction involving a biological resource.
Referring to Sections 7, 21, 23 and 24 of the Act, 2002, learned
Senior Counsel submits that the determination of fair and
equitable benefit sharing is required to be made strictly in
accordance with the Regulations framed by the National
Biodiversity Authority. Therefore, the authority of the State
Biodiversity Board to impose ABS is circumscribed by the
conditions stipulated in Clause 3 of the Regulations, 2014, and
59
unless the jurisdictional facts contemplated therein exist, the
Board lacks competence to direct recovery of any amount from
the petitioners. It is further argued that Clause 15-B of the
Regulations, 2014 was admittedly absent in the purchaser's
agreements executed for the collection year 2022 and, therefore,
the respondents could not retrospectively incorporate the said
clause through executive instructions and recover ABS for
contracts already concluded.
20.Learned Senior Counsel has laid considerable emphasis on the
language employed in Clause 3 of the Regulations, 2014 and
submits that the said provision specifically contemplates cases
where an applicant, trader or manufacturer purchases biological
resources directly from Joint Forest Management Committees,
forest dwellers, tribal cultivators or Gram Sabhas. According to
him, the expression "purchases directly" constitutes the very
jurisdictional fact for invocation of Clause 3 of the Regulations,
2014. Since the petitioners admittedly purchase only Government
auction lots from Respondent No.3 and have no direct transaction
with any of the specified benefit claimers, the essential pre-
condition for invoking Clause 3 is absent. It is argued that the
interpretation advanced by the respondents renders the words
"purchases directly" wholly otiose and impermissibly enlarges the
scope of delegated legislation. In support of the principles
governing statutory interpretation, reliance has been placed on
Sri Tarkeshwar Sio Thakur Jiu v. Dar Dass Dey & Co., (1979)
60
3 SCC 106, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted the
expression "directly", and B.D. Shetty v. CEAT Ltd., (2002) 1
SCC 193, wherein it was held that every word employed by the
Legislature must be given its due meaning and no statutory
expression can be treated as redundant.
21.Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the validity of the
impugned orders must be tested solely on the reasons contained
therein and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the
counter affidavits. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon
the celebrated decision in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief
Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405, as followed in City
and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd.
v. Shishir Realty (P) Ltd., (2022) 16 SCC 527, State of Bihar v.
Shyama Nandan Mishra, (2022) 17 SCC 420 and Babanna
Machched v. Union of India, (2024) 5 SCC 306, to contend that
an administrative order must stand or fall on the reasons
recorded therein. It is submitted that the impugned Order dated
24.01.2023 nowhere records the existence of the jurisdictional
facts necessary for invocation of Clause 3 of the Regulations,
2014 and, therefore, the respondents cannot improve their case
by introducing new grounds during the course of litigation.
22.Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the Adhiniyam, 1964
and the Act, 2002 operate in distinct but harmonious fields and
there exists no conflict between the two enactments. According to
61
him, while the Adhiniyam, 1964 governs the statutory trade in
Tendu Leaf through the State machinery, the Biological Diversity
Act regulates access to biological resources and equitable benefit
sharing. A harmonious construction of both enactments
necessarily leads to the conclusion that where the State itself,
acting through its statutory agency, procures Tendu Leaves from
forest dwellers and thereafter auctions Government Forest Lots,
the successful auction purchasers cannot, by any legal fiction, be
treated as persons directly procuring biological resources from
benefit claimers. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the
respondents themselves have described ABS as a "fee" in their
pleadings and, therefore, in the absence of any identifiable
service or quid pro quo rendered to the petitioners, the levy
cannot be sustained. Reliance in this regard has been placed
upon the Constitution Bench judgment in Commissioner, Hindu
Religious Endowments v. Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of
Sri Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282.
23.Lastly, learned Senior Counsel submits that the reliance placed
by the respondents on the decision of the Uttarakhand High Court
in Divya Pharmacy v. Union of India & Others, 2018 SCC
OnLine Utt 1035, is wholly misconceived, as the said judgment
arose in an entirely different factual and statutory backdrop and
did not involve purchasers of Government-auctioned Forest Lots
under the Adhiniyam, 1964. It is further contended that the
provisos appended to Clause 3 of the Regulations, 2014 cannot
62
operate independently of the substantive provision and cannot
enlarge its scope. In support of the State's statutory ownership
and control over forest produce and the mechanism governing
procurement and sale of Tendu Leaves. Reliance has also been
placed upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in
Krishna Shukla v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, WPPIL
No.113 of 2021, decided on 07.04.2026, as well as State of
West Bengal v. Sujit Kumar Rana, (2004) 4 SCC 129.
24.On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior
Counsel contends that the foundational jurisdictional facts
prescribed under Clause 3 of the Regulations, 2014 are
admittedly absent in the present cases and, therefore, the
impugned order dated 24.01.2023 and the consequential letter
dated 25.01.2023 are without authority of law, arbitrary, contrary
to the statutory scheme and deserve to be quashed.
25.Mr. Amrito Das, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Ankur
Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners,
would submit that the impugned letter dated 24.11.2022, the
consequential order dated 24.01.2023 and letter dated
25.01.2023, whereby the respondent authorities have directed
recovery of 2% ABS from the purchase price of Tendu Forest
Lots, are wholly without jurisdiction, contrary to the statutory
scheme governing trade in Tendu leaves and liable to be
quashed. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the
63
petitioners are merely successful auction purchasers of Tendu
Forest Lots from the State Government and do not have any
direct transaction or privity with forest dwellers, tribal cultivators,
Gram Sabhas or primary collectors from whom the Tendu leaves
are initially procured.
26.It is submitted that the entire trade in Tendu leaves in the State of
Chhattisgarh is exclusively governed by the provisions of the
Adhiniyam, 1964 (as applicable to the State of Chhattisgarh),
which creates a complete statutory monopoly in favour of the
State Government. Referring to the Preamble and Sections 4, 5,
7, 9, 12 and 12-A of the Adhiniyam, 1964, learned Senior Counsel
would contend that the State Government alone, or its authorised
officer or agent, is empowered to purchase Tendu Leaves from
growers and forest dwellers, fix the purchase price, and thereafter
dispose of the Tendu Leaves by sale or auction. The statutory
scheme, therefore, completely excludes any direct purchase by
private traders from forest dwellers and vests the ownership of
Tendu Leaves in the State Government before they are sold
through public auction.
27.Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that Sections 5(1)
and 5(3) of the Adhiniyam, 1964 expressly prohibit any person
other than the State Government or its authorised agent from
purchasing Tendu Leaves from growers, while Section 9 casts a
statutory obligation upon the State Government or its authorised
64
officer to purchase the produce at the price fixed under Section 7.
Thereafter, under Section 12, the State Government alone is
authorised to sell or otherwise dispose of the Tendu Leaves.
Even the resale of surplus Tendu Leaves is regulated under
Section 12-A, which requires prior permission of the State
Government. Thus, the entire chain of procurement, ownership,
transportation, sale and resale is statutorily regulated by the State
Government, leaving no scope for any direct procurement by the
petitioners from the original collectors.
28.Proceeding on the aforesaid statutory scheme, learned Senior
Counsel would argue that the provisions relating to Access and
Benefit Sharing contained in the Act, 2002, the Rules, 2015 and
the Regulations, 2014 are wholly inapplicable to the petitioners.
Inviting attention to Regulation 3 of the Regulations, 2014, it is
contended that the obligation to share benefits arises only where
a trader or manufacturer directly purchases biological resources
from Joint Forest Management Committees, forest dwellers, tribal
cultivators or Gram Sabhas without any prior benefit-sharing
arrangement. Since the petitioners purchase Tendu Forest Lots
only from the State Government through a statutory auction
conducted by the State Federation, they do not fall within the
class of persons upon whom benefit-sharing obligations are
imposed under the Regulations, 2014.
65
29.It is further submitted that the impugned levy of 2% ABS has been
sought to be imposed by executive instructions in the midst of the
contractual period after the auction process had already been
concluded and the Forest Lots had been allotted to the
petitioners. The terms and conditions governing the auction did
not contemplate any such additional financial liability at the time
the bids were submitted and accepted. According to learned
Senior Counsel, the respondent authorities could not unilaterally
alter the contractual terms by directing recovery of an additional
amount through executive orders, particularly when no such
liability is contemplated either under the Adhiniyam, 1964 or
under the contractual documents executed between the parties.
30.Learned Senior Counsel would further contend that even
assuming, without admitting, that the impugned 2% amount is not
in the nature of a tax but is sought to be justified as
compensation, cess or benefit-sharing contribution, the
petitioners cannot be saddled with such liability. The petitioners
acquire ownership over the Tendu Leaves only after the State
Government has completed the statutory process of procurement
and disposal under the Adhiniyam, 1964. Consequently, the
petitioners are merely subsequent purchasers from the State
Government and cannot be equated with traders who directly
access biological resources from forest dwellers or indigenous
communities. It is submitted that fiscal and charging provisions
must receive strict interpretation, and in the absence of any
66
express statutory provision authorising recovery from subsequent
purchasers, no such liability can be imposed.
31.On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior
Counsel would submit that the impugned letter dated 24.11.2022,
order dated 24.01.2023 and consequential letter dated
25.01.2023 are contrary to the scheme of the Adhiniyam, 1964,
the Act, 2002, the Rules, 2015 and the Regulations, 2014. It is,
therefore, prayed that the impugned communications directing
recovery of 2% Access and Benefit Sharing from the petitioners
be declared illegal and quashed, and the respondents be
restrained from making any such recovery from the petitioners.
32.Ms. Akansha Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respective
petitioners, while adopting the submissions advanced by Mr.
Amrito Das, learned Senior Counsel, would further submit that
the very foundation of the impugned demand is contrary to the
statutory framework of the Act, 2002 and the Regulations, 2014.
According to her, Clause 3 of the Regulations, 2014 contemplates
benefit-sharing obligations only in cases where a trader or
manufacturer directly procures biological resources from Joint
Forest Management Committees (JFMCs), forest dwellers, tribal
cultivators or Gram Sabhas. In the present cases, the petitioners
do not have any direct commercial transaction with such benefit
claimers, as they purchase Tendu Forest Lots only from the
Federation through a statutory auction conducted under the
67
provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1964. Consequently, the essential
jurisdictional requirement for invoking Clause 3 of the
Regulations, 2014 is wholly absent.
33.Learned counsel would further submit that the statutory scheme
under the Adhiniyam, 1964 creates a complete monopoly in
favour of the State Government in the procurement and trade of
Tendu Leaves. The growers and forest dwellers are statutorily
obliged to sell Tendu Leaves only to the State Government or its
authorised officers or agents, who thereafter dispose of the
produce by public auction. The petitioners are, therefore, merely
subsequent purchasers from the State and cannot be equated
with traders who directly access biological resources from benefit
claimers. She would further contend that the reliance placed by
the respondents on the decision in Divya Pharmacy (supra) is
wholly misconceived, as the said decision did not consider the
statutory scheme under the Adhiniyam, 1964 creating State
monopoly over the trade in Tendu Leaves, and, therefore, the
ratio laid down therein cannot be mechanically applied to the
facts of the present cases.
34.Learned counsel would next contend that, even otherwise, the
Tendu Leaves dealt with by the petitioners cannot be regarded as
"biological resources" within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the
Act, 2002 at the stage when they are commercially utilised. It is
submitted that after procurement, the leaves undergo several
68
processes such as pruning, drying, weathering, sprinkling,
preservation, grading, bundling and packing, whereby they
acquire enhanced utility and commercial value and become
value-added products. Since Section 2(c) of the Act, 2002
expressly excludes "value-added products" from the definition of
"biological resources", the processed Tendu Leaves fall outside
the ambit of the Act, with the result that the provisions relating to
ABS cannot be invoked against the petitioners.
35.It is further submitted that the respondents have sought to impose
the impugned liability by executive instructions after the auction
process had concluded and the agreements governing the
collection year 2022 had already been executed. The agreements
executed pursuant to the auction did not contain any stipulation
requiring payment of Access and Benefit Sharing. Clause 15-B,
incorporating such liability, was admittedly introduced
subsequently, and the respondents themselves sought execution
of supplementary agreements, thereby acknowledging that no
such obligation formed part of the original contractual
arrangement. According to learned counsel, the respondents, by
virtue of their monopolistic position in the trade of Tendu Leaves,
attempted to compel the petitioners to execute supplementary
agreements at a stage when they had already undertaken
substantial contractual obligations. Such unilateral alteration of
concluded contracts, it is submitted, is contrary to Section 21 of
the Act, 2002, which contemplates determination of equitable
69
benefit sharing only on the basis of mutually agreed terms and
conditions, and is therefore arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India.
36.Learned counsel would also submit that the object of equitable
benefit sharing already stands substantially fulfilled through the
existing statutory mechanism governing the trade in Tendu
Leaves in the State. It is contended that the profits generated
from the sale of Tendu Leaves are distributed under the State
policy, whereby a substantial portion is paid to the collectors and
forest-dependent communities, while the remaining amount is
utilised for development of Primary Minor Forest Produce Co-
operative Societies and value addition of forest produce. In such
circumstances, the additional levy of 2% ABS upon the
petitioners, who merely purchase Tendu Forest Lots through
public auction, amounts to duplication of benefit sharing and
imposes an unreasonable financial burden having no rational
nexus with the object sought to be achieved under the Act, 2002.
According to learned counsel, the impugned levy therefore
imposes an unreasonable restriction upon the petitioners'
fundamental right to carry on trade and business guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
37.Lastly, learned counsel would submit that the impugned levy
cannot be sustained either as a fee or as a tax. It is argued that
the respondents themselves do not contend that any service is
70
rendered to the petitioners in consideration of the levy and,
therefore, the essential element of quid pro quo, which is the
distinguishing characteristic of a fee, is completely absent. If the
levy is not a fee, it assumes the character of a compulsory fiscal
impost, which can be sustained only upon the authority of a valid
charging provision enacted by the legislature, as mandated by
Article 265 of the Constitution of India. The Act, 2002 contains no
express charging provision authorising compulsory recovery of
Access and Benefit Sharing from auction purchasers such as the
petitioners.
38.Alternatively, it is submitted that even if the levy is treated as a
regulatory fee, such power vests only in the Biodiversity
Management Committee constituted under Section 41 of the Act,
2002 and admittedly no such Committee has either determined or
demanded the impugned amount. It is, therefore, prayed that the
impugned order dated 24.01.2023 and consequential letter dated
25.01.2023 be declared as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction
unconstitutional, and the same be quashed with all consequential
reliefs.
39.On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the writ
petitions and submit that the challenge to the order dated
24.01.2023 and the consequential letter dated 25.01.2023 is
wholly misconceived and contrary to the scheme of the Act, 2002.
According to him, the impugned communications merely seek to
71
ensure compliance with the statutory mandate relating to ABS
and do not create any new liability dehors the provisions of the
Act, 2002, the Rules, 2015 and the Regulations, 2014. It is
submitted that the principal object of the Act, 2002 is the
conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of its
components and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising
from the commercial utilisation of biological resources, and the
impugned action has been taken only to achieve the said
statutory objectives.
40.Learned State counsel would further submit that the petitioners
have proceeded on an erroneous interpretation of Regulation 3 of
the Regulations, 2014 by contending that the obligation to share
benefits arises only when biological resources are purchased
directly from Joint Forest Management Committees, forest
dwellers, tribal cultivators or Gram Sabhas. According to the
respondents, the liability of the petitioners does not emanate
solely from Regulation 3 but flows from the substantive provisions
of Sections 2(a), 7 and 24 of the Act, 2002 read with Rule 17 of
the Rules, 2015. It is argued that the expression "access" under
Section 2(a) is of wide amplitude, and once the petitioners
acquire biological resources, namely Tendu Leaves, for
commercial utilisation through public auction conducted by the
Federation, they are persons having "access" to biological
resources within the meaning of the Act and are consequently
obliged to comply with the statutory requirement of prior
72
intimation and execution of the prescribed agreement containing
conditions relating to equitable benefit sharing. The provisions of
the Adhiniyam, 1964, according to the learned State counsel,
regulate only the trade and procurement of Tendu Leaves and do
not exclude the applicability of the Act, 2002.
41.It is further submitted that the petitioners, instead of complying
with the statutory procedure contemplated under Section 24 of
the Act, 2002 and Rule 17 of the Rules, 2015, have sought to
avoid their statutory obligations by placing undue reliance on the
provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1964. Learned State counsel would
argue that if the petitioners had accessed biological resources
without following the procedure prescribed under the Act, 2002,
they would expose themselves to the consequences
contemplated under Sections 55 and 58 of the Act, 2002.
However, instead of initiating coercive proceedings, the
Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board adopted a pragmatic
approach by issuing administrative instructions to the concerned
forest authorities to ensure execution of the prescribed
agreements and recovery of the benefit-sharing amount from the
successful auction purchasers. It is therefore contended that the
impugned orders merely facilitate implementation of the statutory
scheme and cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.
42.Learned State counsel would lastly submit that the petitioners,
being commercial beneficiaries of biological resources, are under
73
a statutory obligation to contribute towards equitable benefit
sharing and cannot evade such liability merely because the
biological resources were acquired through a statutory auction
conducted by the Federation. It is further contended that the
petitioners have not challenged the supplementary agreements
executed pursuant to the auction conditions, nor have they
challenged any specific demand or sought refund of the amounts
already deposited. It is pointed out that from the collection year
2023 onwards, the petitioners have been depositing the
prescribed ABS amount without protest under the scheme of the
Act, 2002 and the Rules framed thereunder. Accordingly, it is
prayed that all the writ petitions, being devoid of merit, deserve to
be dismissed.
43.Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned counsel appearing for the Chhattisgarh
State Biodiversity Board, while supporting the submissions
advanced by the learned State counsel, would submit that the
Act, 2002 is a beneficial social and environmental legislation
enacted by Parliament to give effect to India's international
obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992
(CBD) and the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing.
According to him, the three foundational objectives of the Act,
2002, namely conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use
of its components and fair and equitable sharing of benefits
arising from commercial utilisation of biological resources,
constitute the guiding principles of the enactment and every
74
provision of the Act is required to receive a purposive
interpretation so as to advance these statutory objectives. It is
submitted that ABS is the heart of the statutory scheme and is
intended to ensure that local communities, tribal people and
forest dwellers, who have traditionally conserved biological
resources, receive a fair share of the economic benefits
generated from their commercial utilisation. The amount
recovered towards ABS, it is contended, is neither a tax nor a fee
but a statutory mechanism of environmental justice and equitable
distribution of benefits.
44.Learned counsel would further submit that Tendu Leaves are
undisputedly "biological resources" within the meaning of Section
2(c) of the Act, 2002 and the petitioners admittedly commercially
utilise the same for manufacture and trade of beedis. By virtue of
Sections 7, 23 and 24 of the Act, 2002 read with Rule 17 of the
Rules, 2015, every Indian citizen or body corporate intending to
access biological resources for commercial utilisation is required
to furnish prior intimation to the State Biodiversity Board and
execute the prescribed agreement containing conditions relating
to equitable benefit sharing. The liability under the Act, according
to the learned counsel, is attracted by the commercial utilisation
of the biological resource itself and is not dependent upon the
identity of the immediate seller. Merely because the petitioners
procure Tendu Forest Lots through the Federation, they cannot
escape the statutory obligation of benefit sharing, as the
75
Federation merely acts as the statutory procurement and
marketing agency under the Adhiniyam, 1964 and does not alter
the character or origin of the biological resource.
45.Learned counsel would further contend that the Adhiniyam, 1964
and the Act, 2002 operate in distinct and complementary fields.
While the former regulates procurement, trade, transportation and
marketing of Tendu Leaves through a State monopoly, the latter is
an environmental legislation regulating access to biological
resources, biodiversity conservation and equitable benefit
sharing. It is submitted that there is no conflict or repugnancy
between the two enactments, as is evident from Section 59 of the
Act, 2002, which provides that the provisions of the Act are in
addition to and not in derogation of any other law relating to
forests or wildlife.
46.Consequently, compliance with the provisions of the Adhiniyam,
1964 does not dispense with or exclude compliance with the
independent statutory obligations arising under the Act, 2002.
Learned counsel would also point out that despite issuance of
public notices by the State Biodiversity Board calling upon
commercial users of biological resources to comply with Section
7 of the Act and Rule 17 of the Rules, 2015, the petitioners failed
to furnish the mandatory prior intimation or execute the statutory
agreement before commercially utilising Tendu Leaves.
76
47.Refuting the contention of the petitioners regarding value-added
products and contractual stipulations, learned counsel would
submit that the liability to pay ABS arises at the stage of
commercial utilisation of Tendu Leaves, which remain biological
resources within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act, 2002,
irrespective of subsequent processing. It is argued that the
obligation to comply with the provisions of the Act, 2002 is
statutory in nature and cannot be avoided on the ground that the
tender conditions or purchaser's agreements did not expressly
stipulate payment of ABS. The doctrine that there can be no
estoppel against a statute squarely applies and no contractual
omission can override or dilute a statutory mandate enacted in
public interest. The respondents, therefore, were competent to
enforce the statutory obligation notwithstanding the absence of a
specific contractual clause.
48.Learned counsel would lastly submit that the controversy involved
in the present batch of writ petitions is no longer res integra in
view of the decisions of the Uttarakhand High Court in Divya
Pharmacy (supra), and the Allahabad High Court in Sayeed
Absar Bidi Works v. State of U.P. and others, 2021 SCC
OnLine All 1609. Placing strong reliance upon the aforesaid
judgments, it is contended that the High Courts have categorically
held that the provisions relating to ABS are applicable to Indian
entities commercially utilising biological resources and that the
Act, 2002, rather than conflicts with, State enactments regulating
77
the trade of forest produce. It is further submitted that the liability
to pay ABS is determined by the commercial utilisation of
biological resources and not by the mode of procurement or the
identity of the immediate seller. The contention that beedi
manufacturers or traders are exempt merely because the
biological resources are procured through a State-regulated
trading mechanism has been specifically rejected in the aforesaid
decisions.
49.In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel has
placed reliance upon the decisions in Divya Pharmacy (supra);
Sayeed Absar Bidi Works (supra); Kasinka Trading v. Union
of India, (1995) 1 SCC 274; Shri Bakul Oil Industries v. State
of Gujarat, (1987) 1 SCC 31; and Union of India v. Godfrey
Philips India Ltd., (1985) 4 SCC 369, to contend that statutory
obligations cannot be defeated by contractual terms or by
invoking the principles of promissory estoppel and that the
impugned orders having been issued in furtherance of a statutory
mandate deserve to be upheld and the writ petitions dismissed.
50.Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the
Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board, submits that the writ
petitions are not maintainable in view of the efficacious alternative
statutory remedy available under Section 52A of the Act, 2002,
which provides for an appeal before the National Green Tribunal
against any determination of benefit sharing or any order passed
78
by the State Biodiversity Board under the Act, 2002. He submits
that the impugned order dated 24.01.2023 and communication
dated 25.01.2023 pertain to determination and collection of ABS
and, therefore, fall squarely within the ambit of Section 52A of the
Act, 2002. It is contended that the petitioners have bypassed the
statutory appellate mechanism and directly invoked the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, rendering the writ petitions not maintainable.
51.Learned counsel further submits that the entire edifice of the
petitioners' case rests upon an erroneous assumption that the
State Government is the owner of the Tendu Leaf merely
because the trade is regulated under the Adhiniyam, 1964. He
contends that the Adhiniyam, 1964 merely creates a State
monopoly over the trade of Tendu Leaf with the object of
protecting forest dwellers from exploitation by private traders and
ensuring remunerative prices for them. The Adhiniyam, 1964
does not vest ownership of the Tendu Leaf in the State. On the
contrary, under the scheme of the Scheduled Tribes and Other
Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act,
2006 (for short, ‘Act, 2006’), ownership over Minor Forest
Produce, including Tendu Leaf, stands recognized and vested in
forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest
dwellers. The State and the Federation merely act as statutory
agencies facilitating procurement and sale on behalf of such
forest dwellers.
79
52.Learned counsel next submits that the Chhattisgarh State Minor
Forest Produce Cooperative Federation functions through a
three-tier cooperative structure consisting of Primary Cooperative
Societies, District Unions and the Apex Federation. The Primary
Cooperative Societies comprise the Tendu Leaf collectors
themselves and the Federation conducts auctions only on their
behalf. The sale proceeds ultimately flow to the collectors and
forest dwellers, while the Federation merely receives a nominal
commission for carrying out the statutory functions entrusted to it.
Consequently, the interposition of the Federation as a statutory
agent does not alter the true nature of the transaction. The
petitioners, though purchasing the Tendu Leaf through the
Federation, are in substance procuring the biological resource
collected and owned by the forest dwellers, and therefore cannot
avoid their statutory obligation of benefit sharing.
53.Learned counsel further submits that Regulation 3 of the
Regulations, 2014 has to be construed purposively in the light of
the objectives of the Act, 2002. According to him, the expression
"directly" occurring in Regulation 3 of the Regulations, 2014
cannot be interpreted in a narrow or literal manner so as to defeat
the legislative intent of ensuring fair and equitable benefit sharing
with the actual conservers and collectors of biological resources.
Since the Tendu Leaf admittedly originates from and is harvested
by forest dwellers and is commercially utilized by the petitioners
for manufacture of beedis, the petitioners are squarely covered
80
by the ABS mechanism. He further submits that the impugned
levy of 2% falls within the statutory range prescribed under
Regulation 3 and has been fixed by the State Biodiversity Board
in exercise of its statutory powers.
54.Lastly, learned counsel submits that the petitioners have not
challenged the validity of Regulation 3 of the Regulations, 2014,
which continues to enjoy the presumption of constitutionality. So
long as the Regulation remains in force, the State Biodiversity
Board is under a statutory obligation to implement the same by
enforcing the ABS mechanism. He submits that the impugned
orders have been issued in exercise of powers conferred under
Sections 7, 21, 23 and 24 of the Act, 2002 read with Rule 17 of
the Rules, 2015 and Regulations 2, 3 and 4 of the Regulations,
2014. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed
reliance upon the decisions in Divya Pharmacy (supra), which
holds that Indian entities commercially utilizing biological
resources are equally liable for benefit sharing, and Sayeed
Absar Bidi Works (supra), wherein it has been held that the Act,
2002 and the State Tendu Patta legislation operate in distinct and
complementary fields and that commercial users of Tendu Leaf
cannot avoid their obligations under the Access and Benefit
Sharing regime merely because the procurement is routed
through a State-regulated trading mechanism.
81
55.Mr. Trivikram Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the
Chhattisgarh Minor Forest Produce Cooperative Federation Ltd.,
submits that the Federation is merely an agent of the State
Government appointed under Section 4 of the Adhiniyam, 1964
and functions as part of the State machinery. The Federation has
no independent role in determining the liability towards ABS, as
the impugned orders dated 24.01.2023 and 25.01.2023 have
been issued by the Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board. It is
contended that no substantive relief has been sought against the
Federation and, therefore, no cause of action survives against it.
56.Learned counsel further submits that the Federation merely
facilitates procurement and trade of Tendu Leaf in accordance
with the statutory framework under the Adhiniyam, 1964. The
purchase price of Tendu Leaf is fixed by the State Government,
while the Federation functions through its three-tier cooperative
structure comprising the State Federation, District Unions and
Primary Cooperative Societies. It is submitted that the Federation
receives only a nominal commission for carrying out the trade
and the profits earned from the Tendu Leaf trade are distributed
in accordance with the policy of the State Government, whereby
80% is paid as incentive wages to collectors, 15% is earmarked
for procurement, processing and storage of minor forest produce
by Primary Societies, and the remaining 5% is utilized to meet
losses suffered by the Societies.
82
57.It is further submitted that, pursuant to the Government's policy of
advance sale of green Tendu Leaf, successful bidders enter into
agreements with the Federation after the e-tender/e-auction
process, whereafter the Tendu Leaf is handed over in accordance
with the contractual terms. The Federation merely administers the
procurement, storage and release of Tendu Leaf in accordance
with the statutory policy and has no authority to alter or ignore
directions issued by the competent Government authorities.
58.Learned counsel also submits that, pursuant to the
communication dated 07.12.2021 issued by the Forest and
Climate Change Department, the Federation, being an agent of
the State Government, issued consequential directions on
20.12.2021 to its District Unions for incorporating amendments
relating to compliance with the Act, 2002 and the Rules, 2015 in
the purchaser agreements. Thereafter, acting upon the
subsequent communications dated 24.11.2022, 24.01.2023 and
25.01.2023 issued by the Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board,
the Federation merely implemented the directions requiring
incorporation of the amended contractual clauses and collection
of 2% ABS from the purchasers on the net sale value of Tendu
Leaf for deposit with the Biodiversity Board.
59.Lastly, learned counsel submits that the Federation was
statutorily bound to act in accordance with the directions issued
by the State Government and the Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity
83
Board. Relying upon the settled principle that where a statute
prescribes that a thing is to be done in a particular manner, it
must be done in that manner alone, it is contended that the
Federation had no discretion to disregard the statutory directions
or adopt any different course. In support of the said proposition,
reliance has been placed upon Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai v. Abhilash Lal , (2020) 13 SCC 234;
Varshunn Bhan Miskeen v. Hidayatullah National Law
University, (2024) 1 HCC (Chh) 62; and Dharmin Bai Kashyap
v. Babli Sahu, (2023) 10 SCC 461. Accordingly, it is submitted
that no illegality can be attributed to the Federation, which has
merely acted in compliance with binding statutory and
administrative directions issued by the competent authorities.
60.I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable
length and have carefully perused the pleadings, documents
brought on record and the statutory provisions relied upon by
them. I have also examined the provisions of the Biological
Diversity Act, 2002, the Chhattisgarh Biological Diversity Rules,
2015, the Guidelines on Access to Biological Resources and
Associated Knowledge and Benefit Sharing Regulations, 2014,
the Chhattisgarh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam,
1964, as well as the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and
Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights)
Act, 2006, which have substantial bearing on the controversy
involved in the present batch of writ petitions.
84
61.Before embarking upon an examination of the rival submissions
on merits, this Court considers it appropriate to notice the
statutory framework governing the controversy. The adjudication
of the present batch of writ petitions substantially turns upon the
interpretation of the provisions of the Biological Diversity Act,
2002, the Chhattisgarh Biological Diversity Rules, 2015, the
Guidelines on Access to Biological Resources and Associated
Knowledge and Benefit Sharing Regulations, 2014, the
Chhattisgarh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964,
and the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers
(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.
62.The rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties are founded principally upon
the scope, ambit and interplay of various Sections, Rules and
Regulations contained in the aforesaid enactments. Since the
resolution of the issues involved in these petitions necessarily
depends upon a correct understanding of the statutory scheme
governing access to biological resources, commercial utilization
thereof, determination of ABS, regulation of trade in Tendu Leaf,
and the rights vested in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and
other traditional forest dwellers over Minor Forest Produce, this
Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the relevant statutory
provisions in extenso.
85
63.The relevant provisions of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, the
Chhattisgarh Biological Diversity Rules, 2015, the Guidelines on
Access to Biological Resources and Associated Knowledge and
Benefit Sharing Regulations, 2014, the Chhattisgarh Tendu Patta
(Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964, and the Scheduled Tribes
and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest
Rights) Act, 2006, which have been extensively relied upon by
the learned counsel appearing for the parties, are accordingly
extracted hereinbelow for ready reference and to facilitate a
proper appreciation of the statutory framework governing the
controversy.
A. The Biological Diversity Act, 2002
“The preamble of the Biological Diversity
Act, 2002
An Act to provide for conservation of Biological
Diversity, sustainable use of its components
and fair and equitable sharing of the benefits
arising out of the use of biological resources,
knowledge and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto.
WHEREAS India is rich in biological diversity
and associated traditional and contemporary
knowledge system relating thereto;
AND WHEREAS India is a 'Party] to the
United Nations Convention on Biological
Diversity signed at Rio de Janeiro on the 5th
day of June, 1992;
86
AND WHEREAS the said Convention came
into force on the 29th December. 1993;
AND WHEREAS the said Convention
reaffirms the sovereign rights of the States
over their biological resources;
AND WHEREAS the said Convention has the
main objective of conservation of biological
diversity, sustainable use of its components
and fair and equitable sharing of the benefits
arising out of utilisation of genetic resources;
AND WHEREAS India is a Party to the
Nagoya Protocol on access to genetic
utilisation to the convention on Biological
Diversity which was adopted on the resources
and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits
arising from their 29th October, 2010 in
Nagoya, Japan;
AND WHEREAS it is considered necessary to
provide for conservation, sustainable
utilisation, fair and equitable sharing of the
benefits arising out of utilisation of biological
resources and also to give effect to the said
Convention:
Be it enacted by Parliament in the Fifty-third
Year of the Republic of India as follows:-
Section 2(a) – "access" means collecting,
procuring or possessing any biological
resource occurring in or obtained from India or
traditional knowledge associated thereto, for
87
the purposes of research or bio-survey or
commercial utilisation;
Section 2(aa) – "benefit claimers" means the
conservers of biological resources, their by-
products, creators or holders of traditional
knowledge associated thereto (excluding
codified traditional knowledge only for Indians)
and information relating to the use of such
biological resources, innovations and practices
associated with such use and application;]
Section 2(c) – "biological resources" include
plants, animals, micro-organisms or parts of
their genetic material and derivatives
(excluding value added products), with actual
or potential use or value for humanity, but
does not include human genetic material;]
Section 2(f) – "commercial utilization" means
end user of biological resources for
commercial utilization such as drugs, industrial
enzymes, food flavours, fragrance, cosmetics,
emulsifiers, oleoresins, colours, extracts and
genes used for improving crops and livestock
through genetic intervention, but does not
include conventional breeding or traditional
practices in use in any agriculture, horticulture,
poultry, dairy farming, animal husbandry or
bee keeping;
Section 3 - Certain persons not to
undertake Biodiversity related activities
without approval of National Biodiversity
Authority.-(1) No person referred to in sub-
88
section (2) shall without previous approval of
the National Biodiversity Authority, obtain any
biological resource occurring in India or
knowledge associated thereto for research or
for commercial utilisation or for bio-survey and
bio-utilisation.
(2) The persons who shall be required to take
the approval of the National Biodiversity
Authority under sub-section (1) are the
following, namely:-
(a) a person who is not a citizen of India;
(b) citizen of India, who is a non-resident as
defined in clause (30) of section 2 of the
Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961);
(c) a body corporate, association or
organisation-
(i) not incorporated or registered in India; or
[(ii) incorporated or registered in India
under any law for the time being in force,
which is controlled by a foreigner within the
meaning of clause (27) of section 2 of the
Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013).]
COMMENTS
Any person (i) who is not a citizen of India;
(ii) a citizen of India, who is non-resident;
(iii) a body corporate, association or
organisation not incorporated or registered
in India, or incorporated or registered in
India under any law for the time being in
89
force which has any non-Indian
participation in its share capital or
management is required to take prior
approval of the National Biodiversity
Authority for obtaining any biological
resource occurring in India or knowledge
associated thereto for research or for
commercial utilization or for bio-survey and
bio-utilisation.
Section 4 - Results of research not to be
transferred to certain persons without
approval of National Biodiversity
Authority.- No person or entity shall share
or transfer any result of the research on any
biological resource occurring in, or obtained
or accessed from, India or traditional
knowledge associated thereto, for monetary
consideration or otherwise, to a person or
body corporate referred to in sub-section
(2) of section 3, without the prior written
approval of the National Biodiversity
Authority, except the codified traditional
knowledge which is only for Indians:
Provided that the provisions of this section
shall not apply if publication of research
papers or dissemination of knowledge in
any seminar or workshop involving financial
benefit is as per the guidelines issued by
the Central Government:
Provided further that where the results of
research are used for further research,
90
then, the registration with the National
Biodiversity Authority shall be necessary:
Provided also that if the results of research
are used for commercial utilisation or for
obtaining any intellectual property rights,
within or outside India, prior approval of the
National Biodiversity Authority shall be
required to be taken in accordance with the
provisions of this Act.]
Section 6 - Application for intellectual
property rights not to be made without
approval of National Biodiversity
Authority.-[(1) Any person or entity covered
under sub-section (2) of section 3 applying for
an intellectual property right, by whatever
name called, in or outside India, for any
invention based on any research or
information on a biological resource which is
accessed from India, including those
deposited in repositories outside India, or
traditional knowledge associated thereto, shall
obtain prior approval of the National
Biodiversity Authority before grant of such
intellectual property rights.
(1A) Any person covered under section 7
applying for any intellectual property right, by
whatever name called, in or outside India, for
any invention based on any research or
information on a biological resource which is
accessed from India, including those
deposited in repositories outside India, or
traditional knowledge associated thereto, shall
91
register with the National Biodiversity Authority
before grant of such intellectual property
rights.
(1B) Any person covered under section 7 who
has obtained intellectual property right, by
whatever name called, in or outside India, for
any invention based on any research or
information on a biological resource which is
accessed from India, including those
deposited in repositories outside India, or
traditional knowledge associated thereto, shall
obtain prior approval of the National
*[Biodiversity] Authority at the time of
commercialisation.]
(2) The National Biodiversity Authority may,
while granting the approval under this section,
impose benefit sharing fee or royalty or both or
impose conditions including the sharing of
financial benefits arising out of the commercial
utilisation of such rights.
(3) The provisions of this section shall not
apply to any person making an application for
any right under any law relating to protection
of plant varieties.
(4) Where any right is granted under law
referred to in sub-section (3), the concerned
authority granting such right shall endorse a
copy of such document granting the right to
the National Biodiversity Authority.
Section 7 – Prior intimation to State
Biodiversity Board for accessing Biological
92
resource for certain purposes.-(1) No
person, other than the person covered under
sub-section (2) of section 3, shall access any
biological resource and its associated
knowledge for commercial utilisation, without
giving prior intimation to the concerned State
Biodiversity Board, but such access shall be
subject to the provisions of clause (b) of
section 23 and sub-section (2) of section 24:
Provided that the provisions of this section
shall not apply to the codified traditional
knowledge, cultivated medicinal plants and its
products, local people and communities of the
area, including growers and cultivators of
biodiversity and to vaids, hakims and
registered AYUSH practitioners only who have
been practicing indigenous medicines,
including Indian systems of medicine as
profession for sustenance and livelihood.
(2) In the case of cultivated medicinal plants,
the exemption under sub-section (1) shall be
available only if a certificate of origin is
obtained from the Biodiversity Management
Committee in such manner as may be
prescribed.
(3) The Biodiversity Management Committee
shall, on the basis of entries made in such
books, maintained in such manner, issue the
certificate of origin under sub-section (2) in
such manner as may be prescribed.]
93
Section 21 – Determination of equitable
benefit sharing by National Biodiversity
Authority.-(1) The National Biodiversity
Authority shall, while determining benefit
sharing for the approval granted under this
Act, ensure that the terms and conditions
subject to which the approval is granted
secures fair and equitable sharing of benefits
arising out of the use of accessed biological
resources, their derivatives, innovations and
practices associated with their use and
applications and knowledge relating thereto in
accordance with mutually agreed terms and
conditions between the person applying for
such approval, and the Biodiversity
Management "[Committee] represented by the
National Biodiversity Authority.]
(2) The National Biodiversity Authority shall,
subject to any regulations made in this behalf,
determine the benefit sharing which shall be
given effect in all or any of the following
manner, namely:-
(a) grant of joint ownership of intellectual
property rights to the National Biodiversity
Authority, or where benefit claimers are
identified, to such benefit claimers;
(b) transfer of technology;
(c) location of production, research and
development units in such areas which will
facilitate better living standards to the
benefit claimers;
94
(d) association of Indian scientists, benefit
claimers and the local people with research
and development in biological resources
and bio-survey and bio-utilisation;
(e) setting up of venture capital fund for
aiding the cause of benefit claimers;
(f) payment of monetary compensation and
other non-monetary benefits to the benefit
claimers as the National Biodiversity
Authority may deem fit.
(3) Where any amount of money is ordered by
way of benefit sharing, the National
Biodiversity Authority may direct the amount to
be deposited in the National Biodiversity Fund:
[Provided that where biological resource or
associated knowledge was a result of access
from an individual or group of individuals or
organisations, the National Biodiversity
Authority may direct that the amount shall be
paid directly to such benefit claimer or
organisation in accordance with the terms of
any agreement and in such manner as it
deems fit.]
(4) For the purposes of this section, the
National Biodiversity Authority shall, in
consultation with the Central Government, by
regulations, frame guidelines.
Section 22 – Establishment of State
Biodiversity Board.-(1) With effect from such
date as the State Government may, by
95
notification in the Official Gazette, appoint in
this behalf, there shall be established by that
Government for the purposes of this Act, a
Board for the State to be known as the...
(name of the State) Biodiversity Board.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this
section, no State Biodiversity Board shall be
constituted for a Union territory and in relation
to a Union territory, the National Biodiversity
Authority shall exercise the powers and
perform the functions of a State Biodiversity
Board for that Union territory:
Provided that in relation to any Union territory,
the National Biodiversity Authority may
delegate all or any of its powers or functions
under this sub-section to such person or group
of persons for body] as the Central
Government may specify.
(3) The Board shall be a body corporate by the
name aforesaid, having perpetual succession
and a common seal, with power to acquire,
hold and dispose of property, both movable
and immovable, and to contract, and shall by
the said name sue and be sued.
(4) The Board shall consist of the following
members, namely:-
(a) a Chairperson, who shall be an eminent
person having adequate knowledge,
expertise and experience in the
conservation and sustainable use of
biological diversity and in matters relating to
96
fair and equitable sharing of benefits, to be
appointed by the State Government;
(b) not more than seven ex officio members
to be appointed by the State Government to
represent the concerned departments of
the State Government, including
departments dealing Panchayati Raj and
tribal "[affairs];
(c) not more than five non-official members
to be appointed from amongst experts,
including legal experts, scientists having
special knowledge, expertise and work
experience in matters relating to
conservation of biological diversity,
sustainable use of biological resources and
fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising
out of the use of biological resources.]
(5) The head office of the State Biodiversity
Board shall be at such place as the State
Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, specify.
Section 23 – Functions of State
Biodiversity Board. The functions of the
State Biodiversity Board shall be to-
[(a) advise the State Government on
matters relating to the conservation of
biodiversity, "[sustainable] use of its
components and fair and equitable sharing
of benefits arising out of the utilisation of
biological resources or traditional
knowledge associated thereto, in
97
conformity with the regulations or
guidelines if any, issued by the Central
Government or the National Biodiversity
Authority;
(b) regulate any activity referred to in
section 7 by granting or rejecting approvals;
(ba) determine the fair and equitable
sharing of benefits as provided under the
regulations made in this behalf by the
National Biodiversity Authority while
granting approvals;]
(c) perform such other functions as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this
Act or as may be prescribed by the State
Government.
Section 24 – Power of State Biodiversity
Board to restrict certain activities violating
the objectives of conservation etc.-[(1) Any
person other than the person referred to in
sub-section (2) of section 3, intending to
undertake any activity covered under section
7. shall give prior intimation to the State
Biodiversity Board, in such form as may be
prescribed by the State Government.
(2) If the State Biodiversity Board is of the
opinion that such activity is detrimental or
contrary to the objectives of conservation and
sustainable use of biodiversity of fair and
equitable sharing of benefits arising out of
such activity it may by order, restrict or reject
such activity:
98
Provided that no such order or rejection shall
be made without giving an opportunity of being
heard to the person concerned.
(3) The State Biodiversity Board shall place in
public domain the details of every approval
granted or rejected under this section.]
Section 52A – Appeal to National Green
Tribunal.- Any person aggrieved by any
determination of benefit sharing or order of the
National Biodiversity Authority or a State
Biodiversity Board under this Act, on or after
the commencement of the National Green
Tribunal Act, 2010, may file an appeal to the
National Green Tribunal established under
section 3 of the National Green Tribunal Act,
2010, in accordance with the provisions of that
Act.]
Section 55 - Penalties.-If any person or entity
covered under sub-section (2) of section 3 or
section 7 contravenes or attempts to
contravene or abets the contravention of the
provisions of section 3 or section 4 or section
6 or section 7, such person shall be liable to
pay penalty which shall not be less than one
lakh rupees, but which may extend to fifty lakh
rupees, but where the damage caused
exceeds the amount of penalty, such penalty
shall be commensurate with the damage
caused, and in case, the failure or
contravention continues, an additional penalty
may be imposed, which shall not exceed one
crore rupees and such penalty shall be
99
decided by the adjudicating officer appointed
under section 55A.”
64.From a careful perusal of the scheme of the Biological Diversity
Act, 2002, it appears that the Parliament has enacted the said
legislation as a comprehensive and self-contained code to fulfil
India's international obligations flowing from the Convention on
Biological Diversity, 1992 and the Nagoya Protocol. The
Statement of Objects and Reasons, the Preamble and the
substantive provisions of the Act, 2002 unmistakably demonstrate
that the legislation rests upon three fundamental pillars, namely,
(i) conservation of biological diversity; (ii) sustainable utilisation of
its components; and (iii) fair and equitable sharing of the benefits
arising out of the utilisation of biological resources. The statutory
framework, therefore, does not merely regulate access to
biological resources, but simultaneously seeks to balance
commercial utilisation with ecological conservation and the
legitimate rights of those communities and persons who have
conserved such resources and preserved the traditional
knowledge associated therewith. It is in the backdrop of the
aforesaid statutory object that the relevant provisions of the Act,
2002 deserve consideration.
65.A conjoint reading of Sections 2(a), 2(aa), 2(c) and 2(f) of the Act,
2002 reveals that the legislature has consciously employed
definitions of wide amplitude. The expression "access" has been
defined to include collection, procurement and possession of
100
biological resources for research, bio-survey or commercial
utilisation. Likewise, the expression "biological resources" has
been given an expansive meaning by including plants, animals,
microorganisms, their genetic material and derivatives
possessing actual or potential value for humanity, subject only to
the limited statutory exclusions expressly incorporated therein.
Equally significant is the recognition accorded to "benefit
claimers", namely the conservers of biological resources and
holders of traditional knowledge, thereby acknowledging their
statutory entitlement to participate in the benefits arising from the
utilisation of such resources. The definition of "commercial
utilisation" further makes it evident that the legislature intended to
regulate every organised commercial activity involving biological
resources except those activities which have been specifically
excluded. Thus, the definitional provisions themselves disclose
the broad legislative intent of creating a comprehensive
regulatory regime governing commercial exploitation of biological
resources.
66.The regulatory architecture under the Act, 2002 becomes evident
upon a conjoint reading of Sections 7, 22, 23 and 24. Section 7
mandates prior intimation to the concerned State Biodiversity
Board before any person, other than those specifically exempted,
undertakes commercial utilisation of any biological resource.
Sections 22 and 23 constitute the State Biodiversity Board and
entrust it with wide statutory responsibilities, including regulation
101
of commercial access to biological resources, grant or refusal of
approvals, determination of fair and equitable benefit sharing in
accordance with the statutory regulations and discharge of such
other functions as may be necessary for effectuating the
purposes of the legislation. Section 24 further empowers the
Board to examine the proposed activity and, upon arriving at the
conclusion that such activity is detrimental to the objectives of
conservation, sustainable utilisation or equitable benefit sharing,
to restrict or reject the same after affording an opportunity of
hearing. The cumulative effect of these provisions unmistakably
establishes that the State Biodiversity Board is not merely an
advisory body but is the statutory regulator entrusted with
supervising commercial utilisation of biological resources within
the State.
67.Equally significant is Section 21 of the Act, 2002, which embodies
one of the foundational principles underlying the entire legislation,
namely, fair and equitable sharing of benefits. The provision
obligates the competent authority to ensure that the economic
and other benefits arising from the utilisation of accessed
biological resources, their derivatives and the traditional
knowledge associated therewith are shared with the identified
benefit claimers in accordance with mutually agreed terms. The
statute contemplates multiple modes through which such benefit
sharing may be achieved, including monetary compensation,
transfer of technology, participation in research and development,
102
establishment of development facilities and other non-monetary
measures. The legislative scheme, therefore, treats benefit
sharing not as a fiscal exaction or revenue-generating measure
but as a statutory obligation intended to secure distributive justice
in favour of those who have conserved biological resources and
preserved traditional knowledge over generations.
68.The Act, 2002 also incorporates a complete adjudicatory and
enforcement mechanism. Section 52A provides a statutory
remedy of appeal before the National Green Tribunal against
every determination of benefit sharing or any order passed by the
National Biodiversity Authority or the State Biodiversity Board,
while Section 55 prescribes penalties for contravention of the
statutory obligations created under the enactment. The
availability of a specialised appellate forum, coupled with a
comprehensive regulatory and enforcement mechanism, leaves
little room for doubt that the Act, 2002 is intended to operate as a
complete code governing access to biological resources,
determination of benefit-sharing obligations, regulatory control
over commercial utilisation and adjudication of disputes arising
therefrom. It is the scheme of the Act, 2002, viewed in its entirety,
that must guide the interpretation of the provisions which fall for
consideration in the present batch of petitions.
B. The Chhattisgarh Biological Diversity Rules, 2015
103
“Rule 17 - Procedure for access to/
collection of biological resources.—(1) Any
citizen of India or a body corporate,
association or organization registered in India
seeking access to / collection of biological
resources for commercial utilization or bio-
survey and bio-utilisation for commercial
utilisation with the exception of those as
provided in the proviso to Section 7 of the Act,
shall make an application to the Board in
Form-1 appended to these rules. Every
application for commercial utilization shall be
accompanied with a demand draft of Rs.
1,000/- in favour of Biodiversity Board;
(2) The Board, after due evaluation of the
application, consultation with the concerned
local bodies and collecting such additional
information as it may deem necessary, shall
take decision on the application as far as
possible within a period of 3 months of receipt
of the same;
In this context, the word "consult", for the
purposes of the Act, includes the following
steps, inter alia:—
(a) Issuing of public notice of the proposal for
access/ collection in local languages;
(b) discussion/ dialogue with the general
assembly of the local body; and
(c) formal consent from the assembly after
being provided adequate information about
104
the proposal and its implications for
conservation and livelihoods.
(3) On being satisfied with the merit of the
application, the Board may allow the
application or restrict any such activity if it is
of the opinion that such activity is detrimental
or contrary to the objectives of conservation
and sustainable use of biodiversity or
equitable sharing of benefits arising out of
such activity;
(4) A written agreement duly signed by an
authorized officer of the Board and the
applicant shall regulate commercial utilization
or bio-utilization of biological resource;
(5) The conditions for access to/ collection
may specifically provide measures for
conservation and protection of biological
resources to which the access to/ collection is
being granted;
(6) The Board may reject the application, if it
considers that the request cannot be acceded
to, after recording the reasons thereof. Before
passing an order of rejection, the applicant
shall be given a reasonable opportunity of
being heard;
(7) Any information given in the form referred
to in the sub-rule (1) for prior intimation shall
be kept confidential and shall not be
disclosed, either intentionally or
unintentionally, to any person not concerned
thereto.”
105
69.A careful and conjoint reading of Rule 17 of the Rules, 2015
leaves no manner of doubt that the Rules prescribe a
comprehensive statutory procedure regulating access to and
collection of biological resources for commercial utilization or for
bio-survey and bio-utilisation undertaken for commercial
purposes. Rule 17(1) mandates that every citizen of India, body
corporate, association or organization registered in India
intending to access or collect biological resources for commercial
utilization, except those specifically exempted under the proviso
to Section 7 of the Act, 2002, shall make an application to the
Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board in the prescribed Form-I
appended to the Rules. The Rule further stipulates that every
such application seeking commercial utilization must be
accompanied by the prescribed application fee. The legislative
intent underlying this provision is manifestly clear that no
commercial exploitation of biological resources can be
undertaken as a matter of right, but only upon compliance with
the statutory procedure prescribed under the Rules and subject to
regulatory scrutiny by the competent authority constituted under
the Act, 2002.
70.Rule 17(2) further delineates the statutory duties cast upon the
State Biodiversity Board while considering such applications.
Upon receipt of an application, the Board is required to undertake
a detailed evaluation thereof and, wherever necessary, consult
the concerned local bodies before arriving at any decision. The
106
Rule expressly provides that such consultation is not to remain an
empty formality but must necessarily include issuance of public
notice in the local language, meaningful discussion with the
General Assembly of the concerned local body and obtaining its
formal consent after placing before it adequate information
regarding the proposed activity and its likely implications upon
biodiversity conservation and the livelihood of the local
communities. The Rule also authorizes the Board to seek such
additional information as it may deem necessary and obligates it
to take a decision, as far as possible, within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of the application. The elaborate
consultative mechanism incorporated under Rule 17 clearly
reflects the legislative intention of ensuring transparency,
participatory decision-making and protection of the interests of
local communities who are the primary conservers and
custodians of biological resources.
71.Sub-rules (3) to (7) of Rule 17 prescribe the substantive
regulatory powers of the State Biodiversity Board while
processing applications for commercial utilization of biological
resources. Upon being satisfied regarding the merits of the
application, the Board may grant permission; however, where it
forms an opinion that the proposed activity is detrimental or
contrary to the objectives of conservation of biological diversity,
sustainable use of its components or equitable sharing of
benefits, it is fully empowered to restrict such activity. Rule 17(4)
107
further contemplates that every approval shall be followed by
execution of a written agreement between the applicant and the
authorized officer of the State Biodiversity Board regulating the
commercial utilization or bio-utilisation of the biological resources.
Such agreement constitutes the statutory instrument governing
the rights and obligations of the parties, including compliance with
the conditions imposed by the Board. Rule 17(5) further
authorizes incorporation of specific conditions relating to
conservation and protection of the biological resources in respect
of which access has been granted. Equally important are the
safeguards contained in Rule 17(6), which mandate that before
rejecting any application, the Board must record reasons in
writing and afford the applicant a reasonable opportunity of
hearing, thereby incorporating the fundamental principles of
natural justice into the statutory decision-making process. Rule
17(7) further ensures confidentiality of the information furnished
by an applicant by prohibiting its unauthorized disclosure, thereby
balancing commercial confidentiality with statutory regulation.
72.Thus, Rule 17 of the Rules, 2015 operationalizes and gives
practical effect to the substantive provisions contained in
Sections 7, 23 and 24 of the Act, 2002. While the parent
enactment creates the statutory obligation of obtaining prior
approval and empowers the State Biodiversity Board to regulate
commercial access to biological resources, Rule 17 prescribes
the detailed procedural mechanism through which such statutory
108
powers are to be exercised. The Rule envisages a complete
regulatory process beginning with submission of an application in
the prescribed form, followed by scrutiny and evaluation by the
State Biodiversity Board, consultation with the concerned local
bodies through a participatory process, consideration of the
impact of the proposed activity upon biodiversity conservation
and livelihood of local communities, grant or refusal of permission
by a reasoned decision, execution of a written agreement
governing the terms of commercial utilization, incorporation of
conservation measures and benefit-sharing obligations, and
observance of procedural safeguards, including adherence to the
principles of natural justice and maintenance of confidentiality.
73.The cumulative effect of these provisions unmistakably
establishes that the statutory framework does not permit
unrestricted commercial exploitation of biological resources but
subjects every such activity to a carefully structured regulatory
regime intended to secure ecological conservation, sustainable
utilization of biological resources and fair and equitable sharing of
the benefits arising therefrom.
C. Guidelines on Access to Biological Resources and Associated
Knowledge and Benefit Sharing Regulations, 2014
“Regulation 1 – Procedure for access to
biological resources and/or associated
traditional knowledge for research or bio-
survey and bio-utilization for research.-(1)
109
Any person referred to under sub-section (2)
of section 3 of the Act, who intends to have
access to biological resources and/or
associated traditional knowledge for research
or bio-survey and bio-utilization for research
shall apply to the National Biodiversity
Authority (NBA) in Form I of the Biological
Diversity Rules, 2004 for obtaining access to
such biological resource and/or associated
knowledge, occurring in India.
(2) The NBA shall, on being satisfied with the
application under sub-regulation (1), enter
into a benefit sharing agreement with the
applicant which shall be deemed as grant of
approval for access to biological resource for
research referred to in that sub-regulation:
Provided that in case of biological resources
having high economic value, the agreement
may contain a clause to the effect that the
benefit sharing shall include an upfront
payment by applicant, of such amount, as
agreed between the NBA and the applicant.
Regulation 2 - Procedure for access to
biological resources, for commercial
utilization or for bio-survey and bio-
utilization for commercial utilization.-(1)
Any person who intends to have access to
biological resources including access to
biological resources harvested by Joint Forest
Management Committee (JFMC)/Forest
dweller/Tribal cultivator/Gram Sabha, shall
apply to the NBA in Form-I of the Biological
110
Diversity Rules, 2004 or to the State
Biodiversity Board (SBB), in such form as
may be prescribed by the SBB, as the case
may be, along with Form 'A' annexed to these
regulations.
(2) The NBA or the SBB, as the case may be,
shall, on being satisfied with the resources,
for commercial utilization or for bio-survey
and bio-utilization for commercial utilization
referred to in that sub-regulation.
Regulation 3 - Mode of benefit sharing for
access to biological resources, for
commercial utilization or for bio-survey
and bio-utilization for commercial
utilization.-(1) Where the applicant/
trader/manufacturer has not entered
Management Committee (IFMC)/Forest
dweller/Tribal cultivator/Gram Sabha. into any
prior benefit sharing negotiation with persons
such as the Joint Forest sharing obligations
on the trader shall be in the range of 1.0 to
3.0% of the and purchases any biological
resources directly from these persons, the
benefit on the manufacturer shall be in the
range of 3.0 to 5.0% of the purchase price
purchase price of the biological resources
and the benefit sharing obligations of the
biological resources:
Provided that where the trader sells the
biological resource purchased by him to
another trader or manufacturer, the benefit
sharing obligation on the buyer, if he is a
111
trader, shall range between 1.0 to 3.0% of the
purchase price and between 3.0 to 5.0%, if he
is a manufacturer:
Provided further that where a buyer submits
proof of benefit sharing by the benefit sharing
buyer shall be applicable only on that portion
of the purchase price for which the benefit
has not been shared in the supply chain.
(2) Where the applicant/trader/manufacturer
has entered into any prior Committee
(JFMC)/Frest dweller/Tribal cultivator/Gram
Sabha, and purchases benefit sharing
negotiation with persons such as the Joint
Forest Management any biological resources
directly from these persons, the benefit
sharing obligations on the applicant shall be
not less than 3.0% of the purchase price of
the biological resources in case the buyer is a
trader and not less than 5.0% in case the
buyer is a manufacturer.
(3) In cases of biological resources having
high economic value such as sandalwood,
red sanders, etc. and their derivatives, the
benefit sharing may include an upfront
payment of not less than 5.0%, on the
proceeds of the auction or sale amount, as
decided by the NBA or SBB, as the case may
be, and the successful bidder or the
purchaser shall pay the amount to the
designated fund, before accessing the
biological resource.
112
Regulation 4 - Option of benefit sharing on
sale price of the biological resources
accessed for commercial utilization under
regulation 2.-When the biological resources
are accessed for commercial utilization or the
bio-survey and bio-utilization leads to
commercial utilization, the applicant shall
have the option to pay the benefit sharing
ranging from 0.1 to 0.5% at the following
graded percentages of the annual gross ex-
factory sale of the product which shall be
worked out based on the annual gross ex-
factory sale minus government taxes as given
below:-
Annual Gross ex-factory sale of
product
Benefit sharing
component
Up to Rupees 1,00,00,000 0.1%
Rupees 1,00,00,001 up to 3,00,00,000 0.2%
Above Rupees 3,00,00,000 0.5%
74.A careful reading of the Regulations, 2014 demonstrates that the
said Regulations have been framed by the National Biodiversity
Authority in exercise of the powers conferred under the Act, 2002
with the object of providing the detailed procedural and regulatory
framework for implementation of the statutory scheme relating to
access to biological resources and equitable benefit sharing.
Regulation 1 prescribes the procedure to be followed by persons
covered under Section 3(2) of the Act, 2002 who seek access to
biological resources or associated traditional knowledge for
research, bio-survey or bio-utilization for research. The
Regulation further contemplates that upon satisfaction regarding
113
the application, the National Biodiversity Authority shall execute a
benefit-sharing agreement with the applicant, which itself
constitutes the statutory approval for such access. The proviso
appended thereto further authorizes incorporation of an upfront
payment in cases involving biological resources of high economic
value, thereby indicating that benefit sharing is an indispensable
statutory condition governing access even at the stage of
research wherever the circumstances so warrant.
75.Regulation 2 assumes considerable significance insofar as it
governs access to biological resources for commercial utilization
or for bio-survey and bio-utilization leading to commercial
utilization. The Regulation mandates that every person intending
to access biological resources, including biological resources
harvested by Joint Forest Management Committees (JFMCs),
Forest Dwellers, Tribal Cultivators and Gram Sabhas, shall
submit an application either before the National Biodiversity
Authority or the concerned State Biodiversity Board, as the case
may be, in the prescribed statutory forms. Upon consideration of
the application and being satisfied regarding the proposed
activity, the competent authority is required to enter into a benefit-
sharing agreement with the applicant, which constitutes the
approval for commercial access under the statutory framework.
Thus, Regulation 2 clearly establishes that commercial utilization
of biological resources cannot be undertaken dehors the statutory
mechanism and that execution of a benefit-sharing agreement
114
forms an integral and mandatory component of every approval
granted under the Regulations.
76.The manner in which benefit sharing is to be determined has
been elaborately prescribed under Regulation 3. The said
Regulation recognizes different categories of commercial
transactions involving biological resources and prescribes distinct
benefit-sharing obligations depending upon the nature of the
transaction and the status of the purchaser. Where biological
resources are procured directly from Joint Forest Management
Committees, Forest Dwellers, Tribal Cultivators or Gram Sabhas
without any prior negotiated benefit-sharing arrangement, the
Regulation prescribes benefit-sharing obligations ranging
between one to three per cent of the purchase price in the case
of traders and between three to five per cent in the case of
manufacturers. The Regulation further provides for corresponding
obligations in cases involving subsequent purchasers in the
supply chain and also safeguards against duplication of benefit
sharing where proof of earlier payment is produced. Likewise,
where prior benefit-sharing negotiations have already taken place
with the concerned benefit claimers, the Regulation prescribes
minimum benefit-sharing obligations of not less than three per
cent for traders and not less than five per cent for manufacturers.
Furthermore, in respect of biological resources possessing high
economic value, such as sandalwood, red sanders and their
derivatives, Regulation 3 specifically authorizes the National
115
Biodiversity Authority or the State Biodiversity Board to require an
upfront payment of not less than five per cent of the auction or
sale proceeds before access to such biological resources is
permitted. The cumulative effect of these provisions is that the
Regulations establish an objective statutory methodology for
quantification and recovery of benefit-sharing obligations
depending upon the nature of commercial exploitation and the
category of biological resources involved.
77.Regulation 4 supplements the foregoing provisions by providing
an alternative mechanism for determination of benefit sharing
where biological resources accessed for commercial utilization
ultimately result in manufacture and sale of finished products.
Instead of calculating benefit sharing solely with reference to the
purchase price of the biological resources, the Regulation grants
the applicant the option of discharging the statutory obligation by
paying benefit sharing calculated as a graded percentage of the
annual gross ex-factory sale value of the finished product after
deduction of Government taxes. The Regulation prescribes a
structured slab system, providing benefit sharing at the rate of
0.1%, 0.2% and 0.5% depending upon the annual gross ex-
factory sale turnover. The graded mechanism embodied in
Regulation 4 reflects the legislative intent of ensuring that the
benefit-sharing obligation remains proportionate to the scale of
commercial utilization while simultaneously safeguarding the
interests of the benefit claimers.
116
78.Therefore, a conjoint reading of Regulations 1 to 4 unmistakably
demonstrates that the Regulations, 2014 constitute the
operational framework for implementation of the benefit-sharing
regime contemplated under the Act, 2002 by prescribing the
procedure for obtaining statutory approval, execution of benefit-
sharing agreements, determination of benefit-sharing obligations
and the various modes through which such statutory liability is to
be quantified and discharged.
D. Chhattisgarh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964
“Section 3 – Constitution of units.- The
State Government may divide every specified
area into such number of units as it may
deem fit.
Section 4 - Appointment of agents.-(1) he
State Government may, for the purpose of
purchase of, and trade in, tendu leaves on its
behalf, appoint agents in respect of different
units and any such agent may be appointed
in respect of more than one unit.
(2) The terms and conditions of appointment
of agent shall be such as may be determined
by the State Government from time to time.]
Section 5 - Restriction on purchase or
transport of tendu leaves.-(1) On the issue
of a notification under sub-section (3) of
Section 1 in any area, no person other than,-
(a) the State Government;
117
(b) an officer of State Government authorized
in writing in that behalf; or
(c) an agent in respect of the unit in which the
leaves have grown; shall purchase or
transport tendu leaves.
[Explanation I :— Purchase of tendu leaves
from the State Government or the aforesaid
Government Officer or agent or purchase
under Section 12-A shall not be deemed to be
a purchase in contravention of the provisions
of this Act.]
Explanation II :— A person having no interest
in the holding who has acquired the right to
collect tendu leaves grown on such holding
shall be deemed to have purchased such
leaves in contravention of the provisions of
this Act.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-section (1),—(a) a grower of tendu leaves
may transport his leaves from any place
within the unit wherein such leaves have
grown to any other place in that unit; and
[x x x]
[(b) tendu leaves purchased from the State
Government or any officer or agent specified
in said sub-section by any person for
manufacturer of bidis within the State or by
any person for sale outside the State may be
transported by such person outside the unit in
accordance with the terms and conditions of a
118
permit to be issued in that behalf by such
authority in such manner and on payment of
such fee as may be prescribed. Different
rates of fee may be prescribed for different
types of transport vehicles.
(3) Any person desiring to sell tendu leaves
may sell them to the aforesaid Government
officer or agent at any depot situated within
the said unit.”
Section 7 - State Government to fix
prices.-[The State Government shall, in such
manner as may be presribed, fix a price at
which tendu leaves shall be purchased by it
or by any of its authorised officer or agent
from growers of tendu leaves other than the
State Government:
Provided that different prices may be fixed for
different units.]”
79.A careful reading of the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1964 reveals
that the enactment was brought into force with the avowed object
of regulating the trade in Tendu Leaves by vesting the
commercial activities relating thereto under the control and
supervision of the State Government. Section 3 empowers the
State Government to divide every specified area into such
number of units as it may deem appropriate for the purpose of
effective administration and regulation of Tendu Leaf trade. The
division of specified areas into separate units constitutes the
foundational step for implementation of the statutory scheme,
119
enabling the State Government to exercise effective control over
procurement, purchase and marketing of Tendu Leaves within
each notified unit. The legislative intent is, therefore, to establish
a centralized and regulated mechanism for the commercial
exploitation of Tendu Leaves through a unit-wise administrative
structure created by the State.
80.Section 4 of the Adhiniyam, 1964 further operationalizes the
aforesaid statutory framework by authorizing the State
Government to appoint agents for the purchase of and trade in
Tendu Leaves on its behalf in respect of different units. The
provision expressly contemplates that a single agent may be
entrusted with more than one unit and that the terms and
conditions of such appointment shall be determined by the State
Government from time to time. Thus, the statute does not permit
unrestricted participation of private persons in the procurement of
Tendu Leaves but channels the entire process through agents
appointed by the State Government, who merely act as
instrumentalities for carrying out the statutory functions entrusted
to them. The scheme, therefore, unmistakably establishes that
the procurement and commercial marketing of Tendu Leaves is
intended to be conducted under the direct regulatory control of
the State Government through its duly authorized officers and
appointed agents.
120
81.The regulatory character of the enactment is further reinforced by
Section 5, which imposes a statutory embargo upon the purchase
and transportation of Tendu Leaves. Upon issuance of a
notification under Section 1(3) in respect of a specified area, no
person other than the State Government, an officer duly
authorized by the State Government or the appointed agent of
the concerned unit is legally entitled to purchase or transport
Tendu Leaves. The statutory prohibition is subject only to the
limited exceptions expressly incorporated under the Act, namely,
transportation of Tendu Leaves by the grower within the same
unit and transportation by purchasers who have acquired Tendu
Leaves from the State Government or its authorized officers or
agents in accordance with permits issued under the prescribed
procedure. Section 5(3) further mandates that every person
intending to sell Tendu Leaves shall do so only to the authorized
Government officer or the appointed agent at the notified depot
situated within the concerned unit. These provisions clearly
demonstrate that every stage of procurement, purchase,
transportation and sale of Tendu Leaves is comprehensively
regulated by the statutory framework, leaving no scope for
independent commercial transactions outside the mechanism
established under the Adhiniyam, 1964.
82.Section 7 of the Adhiniyam, 1964 constitutes another significant
component of the statutory scheme by conferring power upon the
State Government to determine and notify the purchase price at
121
which Tendu Leaves shall be procured from growers other than
the State Government. The provision further authorizes fixation of
different purchase prices for different units, thereby recognizing
the possibility of regional variations in commercial and
operational conditions. The statutory fixation of price ensures that
procurement of Tendu Leaves by the State Government, its
authorized officers or appointed agents is carried out in
accordance with a uniform and transparent pricing mechanism
prescribed under law. Consequently, the relationship between the
growers and the State or its agents is not governed by ordinary
market forces or private negotiations but by the statutory price
determined by the State Government in exercise of its legislative
powers under the Adhiniyam, 1964.
83.The cumulative effect of the aforesaid provisions unmistakably
demonstrates that the Adhiniyam, 1964 is a special enactment
governing the commercial regulation of Tendu Leaf trade by
creating a State-controlled procurement and marketing
mechanism. The statute principally deals with the constitution of
administrative units, appointment of State agents, regulation of
purchase and transportation of Tendu Leaves, restriction upon
private commercial dealings and fixation of the statutory purchase
price payable to growers. Its legislative focus is, therefore,
confined to regulation of trade and commerce in Tendu Leaves
through a controlled statutory mechanism. Significantly, neither
the Adhiniyam, 1964 nor the provisions extracted herein contain
122
any provision relating to conservation of biological diversity,
regulation of access to biological resources, sustainable use of
biodiversity, recognition of benefit claimers or determination of fair
and equitable benefit sharing arising from commercial utilization
of biological resources. Those aspects are specifically governed
by the Act, 2002, the Rules, 2015 and the Regulations, 2014,
each of which operates in its own distinct legislative field.
E. Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers
(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006
“Section 2(i) – "minor forest produce"
includes all non-timber forest produce of plant
origin including bamboo, brushwood, stumps,
cane, tussar, cocoons, honey, wax, lac, Tendu
or Kendu Leaf, medicinal plants and herbs,
roots, tubers and the like;
Section 3(1)(c) – Forest rights of forest
dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other
traditional forest dwellers.-(1) For the
purposes of this Act, the following rights, which
secure individual or community tendure or
both, shall be the forest rights of forest
dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other
traditional forest dwellers on all forest lands,
namely:-
***
(c) right of ownership, access to collect, use
and dispose of minor forest produce which has
123
been traditionally collected within or outside
village boundaries;
Section 4 - Recognition of, and vesting of,
forest rights in forest dwelling Scheduled
Tribes and other traditional forest
dwellers.-(1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law for the time being in
force, and subject to the provisions of this Act,
the Central Government hereby recognises
and vests forest rights in-
(a) the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes in
States or areas in States where they are
declared as Scheduled Tribes in respect of
all forest rights mentioned in section 3;
(b) the other traditional forest dwellers in
respect of all forest rights mentioned in
section 3.”
84.A careful examination of the provisions of the Act, 2006
unequivocally demonstrates that the Act is a beneficial social
welfare legislation enacted with the avowed object of recognizing
and vesting forest rights in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and
other traditional forest dwellers, who have traditionally resided in
and depended upon forests for their livelihood. Section 2(i) of the
Act defines the expression "minor forest produce" in an inclusive
manner and specifically includes Tendu or Kendu Leaf within its
ambit. The legislative inclusion of Tendu Leaf in the statutory
definition leaves no scope for ambiguity that it constitutes a Minor
Forest Produce for the purposes of the Act. Consequently, Tendu
124
Leaf stands statutorily recognized as a forest produce in respect
of which the rights contemplated under the Act, 2006 are
available to eligible forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other
traditional forest dwellers.
85.Section 3(1)(c) of the Act, 2006 further fortifies the aforesaid
legislative intent by expressly recognizing, as a forest right, the
right of ownership, access to collect, use and dispose of Minor
Forest Produce which has been traditionally collected within or
outside village boundaries. The language employed by the
legislature is comprehensive and unequivocal. The statutory right
is not confined merely to the act of collection of Minor Forest
Produce but extends to ownership thereof and the consequential
right to use and dispose of the same. The conferment of
ownership, coupled with the rights of access, collection, use and
disposal, manifests the legislative intent to restore and protect the
traditional proprietary and usufructuary rights of forest dwelling
Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers over Minor
Forest Produce. Since Tendu Leaf is expressly included within
the definition of Minor Forest Produce under Section 2(i), the
rights conferred under Section 3(1)(c) necessarily extend to
Tendu Leaf as well, thereby recognizing the entitlement of such
forest dwelling communities to own, collect, utilize and dispose of
Tendu Leaves traditionally gathered by them.
125
86.The legislative mandate becomes even more explicit upon a
conjoint reading of Section 4(1) with Section 3 of the Act, 2006.
Section 4(1) commences with a non obstante clause, declaring
that "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the
time being in force," the Central Government recognizes and
vests the forest rights enumerated under Section 3 in forest
dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers,
subject only to the provisions of the Act itself. The incorporation of
such an overriding clause is a clear manifestation of the
legislative intent that the rights recognized under the Act, 2006
shall prevail over any inconsistent provision contained in any
other enactment operating in the same field. Thus, once the Act
expressly recognizes Tendu Leaf as a Minor Forest Produce
under Section 2(i), and simultaneously vests in eligible forest
dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers
the rights of ownership, collection, use and disposal thereof under
Section 3(1)(c), such rights attain statutory recognition by virtue
of Section 4(1) and are required to be given full effect
notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time
being in force. The statutory framework of the Act, therefore,
unequivocally establishes that the rights over Minor Forest
Produce, including Tendu Leaf, are vested in the eligible forest
dwelling communities in accordance with the provisions of the
Act, 2006.
126
87.Having bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival
submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel/counsel
appearing for the respective petitioners, the learned Additional
Advocate General, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent authorities and upon a careful examination of the
pleadings, the statutory provisions and the documents brought on
record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
controversy involved in the present batch of writ petitions is
essentially one of statutory interpretation. The challenge is not
directed against the constitutional validity of the Act, 2002 nor is
there any dispute regarding the legislative competence of
Parliament to enact the said legislation or the salutary object
sought to be achieved thereby. Equally, the petitioners do not
dispute the principle of Access and Benefit Sharing embodied
under the Act, 2002. Their challenge is confined to the legality
and applicability of the impugned order dated 24.01.2023 and the
consequential letter dated 25.01.2023, whereby recovery of 2%
Access and Benefit Sharing has been directed from the
petitioners on the purchase price of Tendu Leaves. The principal
question, therefore, is whether, having regard to the peculiar
statutory framework governing trade in Tendu Leaves within the
State of Chhattisgarh, the respondent authorities were justified in
invoking the provisions of the Act, 2002, the Rules, 2015 and the
Regulations, 2014 against the petitioners in the manner sought to
be done.
127
88.At the outset, it deserves to be noticed that the Act, 2002 is a
beneficial and welfare legislation enacted to fulfil India's
international obligations under the Convention on Biological
Diversity and to ensure conservation of biological diversity,
sustainable utilisation of its components and fair and equitable
sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisation of biological
resources. The legislative object is undoubtedly of considerable
public importance and must receive due weight while interpreting
the provisions of the statute. However, it is equally well settled
that even a beneficial legislation must be interpreted in
accordance with the language employed by the legislature.
Neither the Court nor the executive authorities can enlarge the
scope of the statute by supplying words which the legislature has
consciously omitted, nor can subordinate legislation or executive
instructions create substantive liabilities not contemplated by the
parent enactment. The settled principle of statutory interpretation
is that while a purposive construction may be adopted to advance
the object of the legislation, such interpretation cannot travel
beyond the boundaries delineated by the statute itself. Equally
settled is the principle that delegated legislation must remain
confined within the limits of the authority conferred by the parent
statute and cannot impose obligations which are otherwise not
sanctioned by the legislative framework. It is in the light of these
well-recognised principles that the validity of the impugned action
deserves to be examined.
128
89.The statutory regime governing Tendu Leaves in the State of
Chhattisgarh possesses certain distinctive features which cannot
be overlooked while examining the controversy. Unlike an
ordinary commercial transaction involving biological resources,
procurement and trade of Tendu Leaves are not left to the free
play of market forces but are completely regulated by the
provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1964. The said enactment creates a
statutory monopoly in favour of the State Government, under
which the collection, procurement, storage, transportation and
disposal of Tendu Leaves are undertaken through the Federation
and its instrumentalities in accordance with the statutory
procedure prescribed therein. The forest dwellers and primary
collectors do not negotiate with or sell the produce directly to the
petitioners. Their relationship is exclusively with the statutory
authorities functioning under the Adhiniyam, 1964, who procure
the produce, determine the procurement price, make payment to
the collectors and thereafter dispose of the Tendu Leaf Forest
Lots by way of public auction. The petitioners enter the statutory
chain only after the entire procurement process has been
completed and acquire rights only as successful bidders in a
public auction conducted under the statutory mechanism.
90.Consequently, the legal relationship between the petitioners and
the biological resource is fundamentally different from that of a
person who directly accesses or procures biological resources
from benefit claimers. This statutory distinction constitutes one of
129
the principal features which requires due consideration while
determining the applicability of the provisions of the Act, 2002.
91.Another aspect which assumes significance is that the impugned
Order dated 24.01.2023 proceeds on the premise that every
purchaser of Tendu Leaves through the statutory auction
conducted by the Federation automatically incurs liability to pay
2% Access and Benefit Sharing under the Act, 2002 and the
Regulations, 2014. However, neither the Act, 2002 nor the Rules,
2015 envisage that the liability to share benefits can be
determined merely on the basis of the identity of the purchaser,
divorced from the statutory scheme under which the biological
resource is procured and supplied. Before fastening such liability,
the competent authority is required to examine whether the
person sought to be proceeded against falls within the statutory
framework governing access and commercial utilisation
contemplated under the legislation and whether the conditions
prescribed by the statutory provisions and the applicable
regulations are, in fact, satisfied. A statutory liability cannot be
presumed merely because a person ultimately acquires a
biological resource through a Government auction.
92.Equally, where the entire procurement mechanism is itself
governed by a separate statutory enactment providing for
collection, procurement, distribution of consideration and welfare
measures in favour of forest dwellers and collectors, the
130
provisions of the Act, 2002 cannot be applied in isolation without
harmoniously construing both enactments so as to give effect to
each of them without rendering either otiose.
93.This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the
controversy involved in the present batch of writ petitions cannot
be decided either by adopting an unduly restrictive interpretation
of the Act, 2002 or by proceeding on the assumption that every
commercial dealing in Tendu Leaves necessarily attracts the
statutory mechanism of Access and Benefit Sharing in an
identical manner. The answer lies in a harmonious construction of
the Act, 2002, the Rules, 2015, the Regulations, 2014 and the
Adhiniyam, 1964, while keeping in view the true nature of the
transactions undertaken by the petitioners, the statutory role
discharged by the Federation and the object sought to be
achieved by both enactments. It is only after undertaking such a
comprehensive examination that the legality of the impugned
order dated 24.01.2023 and the consequential letter dated
25.01.2023 can be determined. The rival submissions advanced
by the parties, therefore, fall to be considered in the aforesaid
statutory and factual backdrop before recording the final
conclusions of this Court.
94.One of the principal submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioners is that since they purchase Tendu Leaves only through
public auction conducted by the Federation under the Adhiniyam,
131
1964, they cannot be regarded as persons liable to pay Access
and Benefit Sharing under the Act, 2002. This submission,
though attractive, cannot be accepted. It is a settled principle that
where two statutes operate in the same field, the duty of the
Court is to harmoniously construe them so as to give effect to
both, unless there exists an irreconcilable conflict. In J.K. Cotton
Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
AIR 1961 SC 1170, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while
interpreting two enactments dealing with the same subject matter,
an interpretation which allows both to operate should be preferred
over one which renders either statute nugatory. Applying the
aforesaid principle, this Court finds that the Adhiniyam, 1964
regulates procurement, collection and disposal of Tendu Leaves,
whereas the Act, 2002 provides for conservation of biological
diversity and equitable sharing of benefits arising from
commercial utilisation of biological resources. Both enactments
operate in distinct yet complementary spheres and there is no
inconsistency warranting exclusion of one by the other.
95.Equally untenable is the contention that the provisions of the Act,
2002 deserve a restrictive interpretation merely because the
petitioners are auction purchasers. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance &
Investment Co. Ltd., (1987) 1 SCC 424, has held that a statute
must be interpreted by reading it as a whole and in the light of the
object sought to be achieved. Likewise, in K.P. Varghese v.
132
Income Tax Officer, (1981) 4 SCC 173, it was observed that a
purposive construction should be adopted to suppress the
mischief and advance the remedy intended by the legislature.
Keeping in view the object of the Act, 2002, namely conservation
of biodiversity and equitable benefit sharing, the provisions
relating to Access and Benefit Sharing cannot be interpreted in a
manner that defeats the legislative purpose merely because the
commercial utilisation of Tendu Leaves takes place through a
statutory auction mechanism.
96.The petitioners have also questioned the authority of the
respondent Board to enforce the impugned Order dated
24.01.2023 and the consequential Letter dated 25.01.2023. In
this regard, it is well settled that delegated legislation must
remain within the confines of the parent enactment. In State of
Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy, (2006) 4 SCC 517, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court succinctly laid down the grounds on which
subordinate legislation may be invalidated, including lack of
legislative competence, violation of fundamental rights,
inconsistency with the parent statute or manifest arbitrariness.
Having examined the provisions of the Act, 2002, the Rules, 2015
and the Regulations, 2014, this Court does not find that the
respondent authorities have acted beyond the statutory powers
conferred upon them. The impugned action is traceable to the
statutory framework and cannot be said to be ultra vires merely
because the petitioners interpret the provisions differently.
133
97.Much emphasis was laid on behalf of the petitioners upon the
contention that the liability has been imposed retrospectively in
respect of contracts already concluded. The submission does not
merit acceptance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner
of Income Tax v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd., (2015) 1 SCC 1,
reiterated that unless the legislature expressly provides
otherwise, statutes creating substantive liabilities ordinarily
operate prospectively. In the present case, however, the
respondents have not created a new statutory obligation by the
impugned communications but have proceeded to implement the
regulatory framework flowing from the Act, 2002 and the
subordinate legislation framed thereunder. Consequently, the
challenge on the ground of retrospectivity is misconceived.
98.Finally, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution, this Court is concerned with the legality of the
decision-making process and not with substituting its own view
for that of the statutory authority. In Tata Cellular v. Union of
India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court
authoritatively held that judicial review is directed against the
decision-making process and not the decision itself, and that
interference is warranted only when the action is arbitrary,
irrational, mala fide or contrary to statute. Having examined the
impugned order dated 24.01.2023 and the consequential letter
dated 25.01.2023 in the light of the statutory provisions governing
the field, this Court is unable to hold that the respondent
134
authorities have acted without jurisdiction or in violation of the
provisions of the Act, 2002, the Rules, 2015 or the Regulations,
2014.
99.Having considered the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the
opinion that the impugned Order dated 24.01.2023 and the
consequential Letter dated 25.01.2023 cannot be examined in
isolation or dehors the statutory framework engrafted under the
Act, 2002, the Rules, 2015 and the Regulations, 2014. The
legislative policy underlying the Act, 2002 is to ensure that
commercial utilisation of biological resources is accompanied by
a mechanism for fair and equitable sharing of benefits with those
who have conserved such resources and preserved the
traditional knowledge associated therewith. The concept of
Access and Benefit Sharing is, therefore, not a mere fiscal
exaction or contractual stipulation but a statutory obligation
founded upon the principles of distributive justice, environmental
protection and sustainable utilisation of biological resources.
Once the legislature has consciously incorporated such a
mechanism within the statutory framework, the Court, while
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution,
cannot substitute its own perception for the legislative wisdom
unless the impugned action is shown to be manifestly arbitrary,
ultra vires or contrary to the statutory scheme.
135
100.The principal submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners is
that they merely purchase Tendu Leaf Forest Lots through public
auction conducted by the Federation and, therefore, cannot be
treated as persons liable to contribute towards Access and
Benefit Sharing under the Act, 2002. The submission, though
attractive at first blush, does not merit acceptance. Merely
because the procurement of Tendu Leaves from the primary
collectors is undertaken through the statutory mechanism created
under the Adhiniyam, 1964, the same does not ipso facto exclude
the subsequent commercial utilisation of such biological
resources from the operation of the Act, 2002. Both enactments
operate in distinct yet complementary fields. While the
Adhiniyam, 1964 regulates the procurement and trade of Tendu
Leaves, the Act, 2002 seeks to ensure conservation of biological
diversity and equitable sharing of benefits arising from
commercial utilisation of biological resources. The two
enactments are not inconsistent with one another and are
required to be harmoniously construed so that the object sought
to be achieved by each is duly effectuated.
101.Equally untenable is the contention that the statutory distribution
of sale proceeds under the Adhiniyam, 1964 completely satisfies
the requirement of benefit sharing contemplated under the Act,
2002. The benefit-sharing mechanism envisaged under the Act,
2002 is founded upon an independent statutory obligation flowing
from the utilisation of biological resources and cannot be equated
136
with the distribution of procurement price or other statutory
benefits payable under an altogether different enactment. The
two operate in separate legal domains and are intended to
achieve distinct legislative purposes. Merely because certain
monetary benefits accrue to the primary collectors under the
Adhiniyam, 1964, it cannot be inferred that Parliament intended to
exclude the application of the Access and Benefit Sharing
mechanism under the Act, 2002 in respect of commercial
utilisation of biological resources governed by other statutory
enactments. The submission that processed Tendu Leaves
constitute value-added products so as to fall outside the purview
of the Act, 2002 also does not persuade this Court to interfere
with the impugned action. Whether, at a particular stage, a
biological resource assumes the character of a value-added
product is essentially dependent upon the statutory definitions,
the nature of processing undertaken and the stage at which the
benefit-sharing obligation is attracted. In the present case, the
liability sought to be enforced by the respondent authorities is not
founded upon the manufacture of the ultimate commercial
product but upon the commercial utilisation of Tendu Leaves
forming part of the statutory auction process. The mere fact that
further processing may subsequently take place does not, by
itself, denude the respondent authorities of their jurisdiction under
the statutory framework.
137
102.At this juncture, it is necessary to deal with the contention that the
respondent-State Biodiversity Board has no authority to demand
Fair and Equitable Benefit Sharing (‘FEBS’) from the petitioners.
The submission cannot be accepted. Regulation of an activity by
requiring payment towards a statutorily recognised benefit-
sharing mechanism is an accepted mode of regulatory
intervention, provided such demand is traceable to the parent
statute and the regulations framed thereunder. In the present
case, the petitioners are admittedly engaged in the commercial
procurement and utilisation of Tendu Leaves, which constitute
biological resources within the meaning of the statutory scheme.
Therefore, merely because the petitioners procure such Tendu
Leaves through the statutory auction mechanism under the
Adhiniyam, 1964, it cannot be said that the State Biodiversity
Board lacks the authority to require payment towards FEBS. As
regards the source of such power, recourse has to be had to
Section 21 of the Act, 2002, particularly sub-section (2) and sub-
section (4) thereof, which expressly contemplate determination of
the terms of benefit sharing in accordance with the regulatory
framework. The power to determine benefit sharing cannot be
rendered ineffective merely because the biological resources in
question are procured under another statutory enactment. The
authority of the State Biodiversity Board, therefore, has to be
examined in the context of the Act, 2002 and the regulations
138
framed thereunder, and not merely with reference to the statutory
mechanism governing procurement and trade of Tendu Leaves.
103. The concept of Fair and Equitable Benefit Sharing cannot, in the
considered opinion of this Court, be viewed within the narrow
confines of the definition clause alone. The expression has to be
understood in the broader context of the object and scheme of
the Act, 2002, which seeks not only to regulate access to
biological resources but also to ensure conservation of biological
diversity and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their
utilisation. The statutory scheme must, therefore, be construed
having regard to the legislative purpose underlying the enactment
as a whole. Section 2(f), read with Section 21(4) of the Act, 2002,
recognises the mechanism for providing monetary and other
benefits to benefit claimers, while the regulatory framework
framed by the National Biodiversity Authority gives effect to the
manner in which such benefits are to be determined and shared.
The State Biodiversity Board, in discharge of its statutory
functions under Section 23, including the power to regulate
access to biological resources and to secure compliance with the
statutory benefit-sharing mechanism, is consequently competent
to implement and collect FEBS in accordance with the Act and
the Regulations. The fact that the petitioners are dealing in Tendu
Leaves under the special statutory regime created by the
Adhiniyam, 1964 cannot, therefore, by itself, deprive the State
Biodiversity Board of its statutory authority to enforce the FEBS
139
mechanism in respect of the commercial utilisation of such
biological resources.
104.This Court also finds no merit in the challenge founded upon the
alleged retrospective operation of the impugned order dated
24.01.2023. The record would demonstrate that the respondent
authorities have not sought to impose any new statutory levy
dehors the provisions of the Act, 2002. The impugned action
merely provides for implementation of the statutory framework
governing Access and Benefit Sharing in relation to the
transactions in question. The mere fact that the petitioners had
entered into contractual arrangements prior to issuance of the
impugned communications does not, by itself, render the
statutory obligation unenforceable, particularly when the
obligation itself traces its origin to the parent legislation and the
regulatory framework framed thereunder.
105.It is equally well settled that the power of judicial review under
Article 226 is directed against the decision-making process and
not against the decision itself. Unless the action of the statutory
authorities is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, without jurisdiction
or in patent violation of the statutory provisions, interference
would not ordinarily be warranted. Having examined the
impugned order dated 24.01.2023 and the consequential letter
dated 25.01.2023 in the backdrop of the pleadings, the statutory
provisions and the rival submissions, this Court is unable to hold
140
that the respondent authorities have acted in excess of the
jurisdiction vested in them under the Act, 2002, the Rules, 2015
and the Regulations, 2014. The challenge mounted by the
petitioners, therefore, does not satisfy the well-established
parameters governing exercise of writ jurisdiction.
106.Consequently, upon an overall consideration of the statutory
scheme of the Act, 2002, the Rules, 2015, the Regulations, 2014,
the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1964, the rival submissions
advanced on behalf of the parties and the legal principles
discussed hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the impugned letter dated 24.11.2022, order dated
24.01.2023 and the consequential letter dated 25.01.2023 do not
suffer from any jurisdictional error, illegality, arbitrariness or
procedural infirmity warranting interference in exercise of the
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. None of the contentions advanced on behalf of the
petitioners persuade this Court to hold that the respondent
authorities have acted dehors the statutory framework or in
excess of the powers conferred upon them under the Act, 2002.
The challenge to the applicability and implementation of the
Access and Benefit Sharing mechanism, in the facts and
circumstances of the present batch of cases, is therefore devoid
of merit and deserves to be rejected.
141
107.In view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons recorded
hereinabove, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the
impugned letter dated 24.11.2022, order dated 24.01.2023 and
the consequential letter dated 25.01.2023 in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction. The impugned action being consistent with the
statutory framework governing Access and Benefit Sharing under
the Act, 2002, the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners cannot be
granted. Consequently, this Court finds no ground to interfere
with the impugned letter dated 24.11.2022, order dated
24.01.2023 and the consequential letter dated 25.01.2023 in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Accordingly, all the writ petitions stand dismissed.
108.In view of the dismissal of the writ petitions, all pending
interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
109.It is, however, made clear that any consequential action to be
taken by the respondent authorities pursuant to the impugned
letter dated 24.11.2022, order dated 24.01.2023 and the
consequential letter dated 25.01.2023 shall be undertaken strictly
in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2002, the Rules,
2015, the Regulations, 2014 and other applicable provisions.
110.There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Yogesh
142
The date when the
judgment is
reserved
The date when the
judgment is
pronounced
The date when the judgment is
uploaded on the website
Operative Full
14.07.2026 13.08.2026 ------ 13.08.2026
143
Head-Note
A beneficial legislation is required to be interpreted purposively so
as to advance the legislative intent and suppress the mischief sought to
be remedied; nevertheless, such interpretation cannot transcend the
express provisions of the enactment. Equally, subordinate legislation
must remain subservient to the parent statute and cannot create,
enlarge or curtail substantive rights or liabilities beyond the legislative
mandate.
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....