ORDER Mishra, J. 1. These petitions have been listed before us on a reference by Bakthavatsalam, J., who has noticed a conflict of his views with a judgment of this Court in Kodaikanal Wattle Bark Vyaparikal Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu,. Since we propose to dispose of the petitions by not merely answering the reference but deciding all the issues involved in the case we have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. 2. Before, however, we advert to the facts of the case, we may at this stage refer to the order of reference which says: Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to a decision of Ratnam, J. in Kodaika-nal Wattle Bark Vyaparikal Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu, which supports his contention, the learned Government Advocate appearing for forest cases draws my attention to Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955 (XVII of 1955), and submits that this provision was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge, when the judgment referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was delivered. The learned Government Advocate contends that the term 'damage' which occurs in Section 3(2) of the abovementioned Act, will include peeling of wattle bark. The learned Counsel wants to sustain his arguments based upon certain expert opinion. Prima facie, I find that there is some point in the argument of the learned Government Advocate at this stage. Since the issue is governed by the judgment of Ratnam, J. as on date, I direct the office to place all the papers before My Lord, the Officiating Chief Justice for being posted before a Division Bench for considering the scope of the term 'damage' which occurs in Section 3(2) of the Act mentioned above. Interim injunction already granted is made absolute. But it is open to the respondent/ department to take any action if the petitioner contravenes any of the provisions of the Act. This order shall not be taken as governing all instances, in which action has to be taken for the contravention of the provisions of the Act. 3. It seems, however, that a reference to Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955 (XVII of 1955), (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is misplaced. This order shall not be taken as governing all instances, in which action has to be taken for the contravention of the provisions of the Act. 3. It seems, however, that a reference to Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955 (XVII of 1955), (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is misplaced. The facts of the case do not warrant any examination of the term "damage" used in the said section beyond examining the same to understand the effect of the provisions in Section 3 of the Act as a whole, but since the facts of the case when examined in the light of the scheme of the Act, reveal that a fresh look to the so-called peeling off of wattle bark has to be given and in that context, the view expressed in the case of Kodaikanal Wattle Bark Vyaparikal Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu, , evaluated, we proceed accordingly to first take notice of the provisions of the Act followed by the statement of law in the case of Kodaikanal Wattle Bark Vyaparikal Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu, , and next, the facts of the case. 4. Besides the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, which contains provisions for the protection and management of forests in the State of Tamil Nadu, the Act, viz. the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955 (XVII of 1955), contains provisions for the regulation of the cutting of trees and the cultivation of land in hill areas in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Act in its preamble states: Whereas there has been indiscriminate cutting of trees in hill stations the State of Tamil Nadu involving large-scale deforestation and resulting in considerable soil erosion. And whereas with a view to prevent deforestation and soil erosion and also to preserve the special characteristics of the hill areas as regards landscape, vegetal cover and climate, it is necessary to regulate the cutting of trees also the cultivation of land in hill areas in the State of Tamil Nadu. Be it enacted in the Sixth Year of the Republic of India. The Act has been made applicable to all hill areas in the State as specified in the schedule and to such other hill areas as may, by notification, be specified by the Government. Be it enacted in the Sixth Year of the Republic of India. The Act has been made applicable to all hill areas in the State as specified in the schedule and to such other hill areas as may, by notification, be specified by the Government. The State Government has been given the power to exclude or include any hill areas from or in the area of application of the Act. 5. Section 3 of the Act, states: (1) No person shall, without the previous permission in writing of the Committee- (a) Cut, uproot or burn, or cause to be cut, uprooted or burnt, any tree, or (b) fell or remove any tree which, constitutes danger to life or property, or is dead or diseased or wind fallen, or has silviculturally matured, or (c) cut or remove any tree for the improvement of coffee crop in any coffee plantation in such area in any hill area as the Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf: Provided that where permission to cut or remove a tree is granted on the grounds referred to in Clauses (a) to (c) above, the Committee shall impose as a condition the effective regeneration of an equal number of the same or other suitable species of trees, and for that purpose may require the person to whom the permission is granted to deposit with the Committee a sum not exceeding one hundred rupees for each tree permitted to be cut or removed. (1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), permission may be granted by the Government to any person to clear any land by cutting, uprooting or burning or causing to be cut, uprooted or burnt any tree subject to the condition, that the land so cleared shall be used for growing coffee or tea; (2) No person shall cut or otherwise damage, or cause to be cut or damaged, the branch of any tree: Provided that this shall not be deemed to prevent the pruning of any tree as required by ordinary agricultural or horticultural practice. Provided further that nothing contained in this sub-section shall be deemed to prevent the cutting or pruning of the branch of any tree for the purpose of providing proper shade for coffee or tea plantation. 6. Provided further that nothing contained in this sub-section shall be deemed to prevent the cutting or pruning of the branch of any tree for the purpose of providing proper shade for coffee or tea plantation. 6. The Committee which has been empowered to grant permission in writing to cut, fell or remove a tree has been defined in Section 2(a) to mean any committee constituted under Section 2-A and having jurisdiction. Under Section 2-A the Government has been empowered to constitute for each hill area a committee for the purpose of the Act consisting of the District Collector having jurisdiction as Chairman of the Committee; the District Forest Officer having jurisdiction over the hill area; the Tahsildar having jurisdiction over the hill area; and the Executive Engineer of the Agriculture Department Incharge of soil conservation having jurisdiction over the hill area and the Personal Assistant (General) to the Collector of the District, who shall be the Secretary of the Committee. 7. Section 3 of the Act thus has introduced a bar to cutting uprooting burning or causing to be cut, uprooted or burnt any tree. The prohibition extends even to felling or removing any tree which constitutes danger to life or property or is dead or diseased or wind fallen, or has silviculturally matured, or cutting or removing any tree for the improvement of coffee crop in any coffee plantation in such area in any hill area as the Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf. The proviso, however, says except with the previous permission in writing of the Committee. It seems, therefore, that a tree which constitutes danger to life or property or a tree which is dead or diseased or even a tree which is wind fallen or has silviculturally matured, cannot be allowed to be cut, uprooted or burnt or caused to be cut, uprooted or burnt or removed unless there is a previous permission in writing of the Committee. The Committee, in view of the proviso is not completely free and in case it decides to grant permission to cut or remove a tree it has to have one of the grounds referred to in Clauses (a) to (c) of Section 3(1) and to impose as a condition the effective regeneration of an equal number of the same or other suitable species of trees. The State Government has however, been given a discretion to grant permission to any person to clear any land by cutting, uprooting or burning or causing to be cut, uprooted or burnt any tree subject to the condition that the land so cleared shall be used for growing coffee or tea. Thus, on a reasonable construction, the Committee's jurisdiction has to be confined to felling or removing any tree which constitutes danger to life or property or is dead or diseased or wind fallen, or has silviculturally matured and in case where the Government has by notification specified in this behalf that there is need to cut or remove any tree for the improvement of coffee crop in any coffee Plantation in such area. Cutting or otherwise damaging or causing to be cut or damaged the branch of any tree is prohibited subject to the freedom, if necessary, to prune any tree as required by ordinary agricultural or horticultural practice or for the purpose of providing proper shade for coffee or tea plantation. Whereas in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 the words used arc 'cut, uproot or burn, or cause to be cut, uprooted or burnt, any tree, the words used in Clause (b) thereof are, 'fell or remove any tree which constitutes danger to life or property or is dead or diseased or wind fallen, or has silviculturally matured and in Clause (c), the words used are 'cut or remove any tree for the improvement of coffee crop, in Sub-section (2), however, the words used are 'cut or otherwise damage or cause to be cut or damaged, the branch of any tree'. 8. It is not in dispute before us that wattle is a tree and that the petitioners had removed its bark when they were subjected to interception and wattle bark detained. According to the petitioners various merchants entered into lease agreements with the pattadars of private lands to peel off wattle bark from the wattle trees standing in their forests and transport them to the places of their respective business. They do so because, according to them, peeling off does not come under the prohibition under Section 3 of the Act and such peeling off the bark of wattle trees does not require any permission in writing of the Committee. They do so because, according to them, peeling off does not come under the prohibition under Section 3 of the Act and such peeling off the bark of wattle trees does not require any permission in writing of the Committee. There is some support to their contention from the judgment of this Court in Kodaikanal Wattle Bark Vyaparigal Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu . After referring to the provisions in Sections 2, 41 and 56 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, the Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules and some of the provisions under the Act (XVII of 1955), it has been held in the said case: It is necessary at this stage to bear in mind the process by which the wattle bark is removed from the tree. Ordinarily the bark is peeled off from a standing tree and this does not involve the falling of the tree also. The collection of wattle bark is also admitted in paragraph 1 of the counter of the respondents. It is not the case of the respondents that unless the trees are felled, the wattle bark cannot be peeled. Therefore, the peeling off of the bark and the felling of the tree are two distinct and unrelated operations. Under Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, "timber" is defined as including trees when they have felled or have been felled, and all wood, whether cut up or fashioned or hollowed out for any purpose or not. It is not the case of either the petitioners or the respondents that the wattle bark trees have been felled or cut up or fashioned or hollowed out and therefore, the wattle bark would not fall within the definition of "timber". However, under Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, "Forest Produce" has been defined to include "bark". Wattle bark would, therefore, be forest produce within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act. While the Timber Transit Rules govern the movement of timber as defined in the Act, there is no corresponding statutory provision or even rules with reference to the transit of forest produce. Indeed, the learned Government Advocate for Forest cases, was repeatedly asked whether there are such statutory provisions or rules governing the forest produce and he frankly admitted that there are no provisions either in the Act or in the Rules governing forest produce. Indeed, the learned Government Advocate for Forest cases, was repeatedly asked whether there are such statutory provisions or rules governing the forest produce and he frankly admitted that there are no provisions either in the Act or in the Rules governing forest produce. It, therefore, follows that in the absence of any statutory provision or rules regarding forest produce, the forest officials are not in order in intercepting the collection, movement and transport of wattle bark collected by the lessees from the trees standing on the lands of the lessors-pattadars. At another place of the same judgment, it is also stated: The reliance placed upon Sections 41 and 56 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act by the learned Government Advocate for Forest cases does not in any manner support the power to regulate. Section 41 enables a Forest Officer or a Police Officer to seize timber or forest produce together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing an offence when there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of the same. "Forest Offence" has been defined as an offence punishable under the Act or any rule made thereunder. The peeling off of the wattle bark, its collection, its movement and transport by the lessees from the trees standing in the lands of the pattadars cannot be equated to commission of a forest offence. If under the guise of removing the wattle bark from the trees standing in the lands of the pattadars, the lessees peel off wattle bark from the trees standing in the forest belonging to the Government, then that would be clearly a case of a commission of forest offence, i.e., theft of forest produce, in respect of which suitable action may be taken against the erring persons. But that cannot be pressed into service to claim that even when the lessees are engaged in the lawful activities of collecting the peeled wattle bark and transporting them in the exercise of their rights as lessees, they are committing an offence, to prevent which, the Forest Officials have the power under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882. Therefore, the reliance placed on Section 41 is of no avail to the respondents. Therefore, the reliance placed on Section 41 is of no avail to the respondents. Similarly, the presumption indicated in Section 56 which was also relied upon by the learned Government Advocate for Forest cases does not assist the respondents. If in the course of a proceeding taken under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act or in consequence of anything does under that Act, a question arises as to whether any forest produce is the property of the Central or State Government such shall be presumed to be the property of the Central or State Government until the contrary is proved. This presumption can apply only when proceedings are taken under the Act or the question arises in consequence of anything done under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act. It is the admitted case that no proceedings have been taken under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and that nothing also has been done by the respondents under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and therefore, no consequential question regarding the right of the Central or State Government to any forest produce, had arisen. Therefore, this section also, does not in any manner, assist the respondents. It is thus seen that the respondents have no power whatever either under the statutes or any rule there under to regulate the peeling off, collection and transport of wattle bark by the lessees from the trees standing in the lands of the pattadars from whom they have taken the lease and the respondents cannot, therefore, interfere with the right of the petitioners to peel off, collect, move and transport the wattle bark either by insisting upon their obtaining a transport certificate or even otherwise. Under those circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to the issue of a writ of mandamus as prayed for. 9. This judgment at the first impulse gives the impression that even though Wattle bark satisfies the definition of forest produce because its peeling off does not amount to felling, it does not involve any forest offence and as such peeling off wattle bark, its collection and removal by transport from the trees standing in the lands of the pattadars by the lessees, which the petitioners before us claim to be, is no offence and the respondents do not possess any authority to interfere. 10. 10. Since we are not concerned with the provisions of the Forest Act except for reference as and when needed, and we have to deal with the Act (XVII of 1955), we may straightway get at the issue whether the prohibitions contemplated under Section 3 of the Act relate to forest land belonging to the State only or apply to forests on private lands as well. The intention of the Act is specific and clear. The reach of Section 3 is not in doubt. Even the owner of the land has to act under the prohibition and cut, uproot or burn or cause to be cut, uprooted or burnt any tree, or fell, cut or remove any tree, only with the previous permission in writing of the Committee appointed by the State Government under Section 2-A of the Act. One cannot but give a pervasive meaning to the term "no person shall, without the previous permission in writing of the Committee" to include all the pattadars themselves as well as their lessees. The petitioners admit that they removed wattle bark and that they were intercepted while so removing the wattle bark. The question therefore to be considered in such a situation will be, whether without cutting a tree or the branches or otherwise damaging the branches, bark can be removed from the wattle tree or not? 11. It is easy to accept the petitioners' contention that by peeling off the bark of the wattle tree there is no uprooting or burning of the tree or there is no felling of the tree involved. It will be indeed somewhat ticklish to think that the bar contemplated as to the removal of any tree is contemplated only with respect to the whole of it and not with respect to part of it unless it is accepted that the bark is not a part of the tree or is something removable from the tree or different from the tree. It will have to be examined whether removal of bark if it is a part of the tree will constitute removal for the purpose of the prohibition in Section 3(b) and (c) of the Actor not it will be equally pertinent to understand as to how bark is removed from the tree. According to the petitioners by 'peeling off. It will have to be examined whether removal of bark if it is a part of the tree will constitute removal for the purpose of the prohibition in Section 3(b) and (c) of the Actor not it will be equally pertinent to understand as to how bark is removed from the tree. According to the petitioners by 'peeling off. And, as to what this peeling off constitutes, according to the petitioners, is anything but not cutting, uprooting or pruning or felling of a tree. They do not have any clear position however, as to whether removal/peeling off of the bark is a damage to the tree or not but then, they say, it is only damage to the branch of any tree which is prohibited and not to the tree's trunk and further add, that such peeling off is in the nature of an act to improve the growth of the tree. 12. We have thus to understand, according to the petitioners, that even if there is damage to the trunk of the tree there is no damage to the branches as if branches live independent of the tree and on the same logic, if there is removal of the bark of the tree it is not a removal of any part of the tree but something independent of and separate from the tree. It does not stop here. It goes further when it, is suggested that peeling of in no manner can be read to mean "cutting" of the tree. 13. We have given our anxious consideration to the language in Section 3 of the Act and its preamble, it is well-settled that when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous no external aid is needed to understand its meaning and amplitude. Preamble of an Act and its objects and reasons are sometimes considered relevant to understand the purpose and the reach of a particular statute, but not in cases where the preamble or the statement of objects and reasons appear to fall short of the positive purposes which the Act intends to achieve. Preamble of an Act and its objects and reasons are sometimes considered relevant to understand the purpose and the reach of a particular statute, but not in cases where the preamble or the statement of objects and reasons appear to fall short of the positive purposes which the Act intends to achieve. The legislature, as we have already noticed, found it necessary that there should be an Act to preserve the special characteristics of the hill areas as regards landscape, vegetal cover and climate and that there has been a damage to the special characteristics of the hill areas and the forests standing in such hill areas on account of the indiscriminate cutting of trees and it was felt necessary to regulate the cutting of trees as also the cultivation of land in hill areas in the State of Tamil Nadu. The expression "cutting of trees" in the preamble has to be understood as not confined to cutting of trees so as to cause felling and converting them into timber. Deforestation or damage to the special characteristics as regards landscape, vegetal cover and climate should not be understood as confined to felling of trees and rendering the landscape free of trees. In its comprehensive meaning it must suggest the purpose to avoid any kind of damage to forests whether on account of felling or removing of trees and cutting or otherwise damaging the trees. The word "cut", if understood as the petitioners want us to understand, will mean to sever from the root. To 'cut' primarily means making an opening by a sharp-edged instrument and includes an incision, a gash, a slash and other kinds of injury by a sharp edged weapon/instrument. 'Peeling off is an expression coined by the petitioners and not by the law-makers. It is in their attempt to escape the prohibition that they appeared to think that peeling off by whatever means may not attract the prohibition of cutting the tree. The word "Peel" when used as a noun means, a shovel or shovel-shaped instrument as also the blade or wash of an oar like instrument and when used as a verb it means 'to strip anything of its outer layer, taking of its skin or rind including the skin of a tree, i.e., stripping the tree of its bark. The word "Peel" when used as a noun means, a shovel or shovel-shaped instrument as also the blade or wash of an oar like instrument and when used as a verb it means 'to strip anything of its outer layer, taking of its skin or rind including the skin of a tree, i.e., stripping the tree of its bark. It may be that peeling off the bark involves lesser degree of cutting than severing the trunk of the tree or a branch of the tree, nonetheless, it is a sort of an injury caused to the tree and this injury has to be caused by some sharp-edged instrument. Thus, it is not difficult to understand that to strip of a tree and its branch one must cut its outer layer and remove the outer layer from the trunk of the tree and thus sever the bark from the trunk. 14. Having thus understood the meaning of the word 'cut' when we read Section 3(1) of the Act it is clear that the legislature has intended to prohibit cutting the tree in any manner not necessarily resulting in felling of the tree, and removal in that context must mean removal of such part of the tree which has been cut. Since no peeling off is possible without cutting the tree and consequent removal thereof, it must be held that under Sections 3(1)(a) and 3(1)(b) of the Act cutting by the so-called peeling off is prohibited and similarly, removal of the bark after having been so cut of the tree. It is not difficult to notice that the law makers have intended a complete embargo except with the previous permission in writing of the Committee in cutting or removing any tree for any purpose and the previous permission has been made subject to an order in writing which must conform to the conditions in the proviso thereto which slates: Provided that where permission to cut or remove a tree is granted on the grounds referred to in Clauses (a) to (c) above, the Committee shall impose as a condition the effective regeneration of an equal number of the same or other suitable species of trees, and for that purpose, may require the person to whom the permission is granted to deposit with the Committee a sum not exceeding one hundred rupees for each tree permitted to be cut or removed. 15. 15. The Committee has been given the option to impose as a condition for cutting a tree which is sought to be cut and removed by requiring the person to whom permission is granted to deposit a sum, the maximum being Rs. 100 for each tree permitted to be cut or removed. Although the proviso states that permission to cut or remove a tree will not be granted except on the grounds referred to in Clauses (a) to (c), from Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, it appears nothing is specifically indicated as the ground for granting permission. It is possible, however, to read in Clauses (a) to (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3, the grounds such as, the felling or removing any tree has become necessary as it has become a danger to life or property or is dead or diseased or wind fallen or has silviculturally matured or it is necessary for the improvement of coffee crop in any coffee plantation area falling in any hill area as the Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf. Words "Silviculturally matured" may be of help to understand the requirement of peeling off the bark of a tree, as any peeling off of the bark pre-matured may cause harm to a tree. The Committee is thus vested with the power to decide whether a tree is silviculturally matured or not and thus to decide whether it should be felled or removed or accordingly cut whole or/part or by peeling off the bark. Any danger to the tree would not leave the branches unaffected. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act uses the expression: No person shall cut or otherwise damage, or cause to be cut or damaged, the branch of any tree; Provided that this shall not be deemed to prevent the pruning of any tree as required by ordinary agricultural or horticultural practice; Provided further that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to prevent the cutting or pruning of the branch of any tree for the purpose of providing proper shade for coffee or tea plantation. The words "otherwise damage" in this context must also be held to be the damage caused or apprehended on account of peeling off or cutting the outer layer of the tree. The words "otherwise damage" in this context must also be held to be the damage caused or apprehended on account of peeling off or cutting the outer layer of the tree. The Committee may, in a given case as we have indicated earlier, be satisfied that peeling off the bark is necessary and/or pruning of any tree is required by ordinary agricultural or horticultural practice and for that purpose, give permission. It is not the case of the petitioners before us that their case falls under the second proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act and that the bark which they were removing were obtained on account of cutting or pruning of the branch for the purposes of providing proper shade for coffee or tea plantation, or that the first proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 3 is attracted. Exceptions enumerated in Sub-section (2) of Section 3 are exceptions for all purposes and therefore, may be available as a defence to any person for cutting, uprooting, felling or removing a tree but so long as such evidence is not available the law under Section 3 makes it clear that removal of the bark shall fall under the prohibition. 16. We have some difficulty in accepting the statement of law in Kodaikanal Wattle Bark Vyaparigal Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu, with respect to the meaning of 'timber' and 'forest produce'. 'Timber (has been defined to include, in Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, trees when they have fallen or have been felled, and all wood, whether cutup or fashioned or hollowed out for any purpose or not. 'Forest produce' has been defined to include minerals (including limestone and laterite), surface soil, trees, timber, plants, grass, peat, canes, creepers, reeds, fibres, leaves, moss, flowers, fruits, seeds, roots, galls, spices, juice, catechu, bark, caoutchouc, gum, wood-oil, resin varnish lac, charcoal honey and was skins, tusks, bones and horns. In Explanation I it is stated: "In the transferred territory, 'forest produce' also includes the following things, whether found in, or brought from, a forest or not, that is to say: timber or trees which are specified to be royalties under Section 40-G" and in Explanation II it is stated that timber does not include any wood that has been brought or fashioned such as doors, windows, articles or furniture and boxes. Thus we find that bark is included in the description of 'forest produce' and timber includes all wood, whether cut up or fashioned or hollowed out for any purpose or not. The Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, is quite comprehensive. It applies to all forests whether private or belonging to the State. All that is necessary to see, however, is whether there is any notification in the Official Gazette exempting any place from the operation of the whole or any portion of this Act but not so as to affect anything done or any offence committed or any fine or penalty incurred or any proceeding commenced in such place before such exemption. Under the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act, such area which is not under cultivation must be understood as a Forest whether private or belonging to the State. This has defined cultivation to mean raising of cereals, pubers or plantation crops but not to include the raising of kitchen gardens or flower gardens and says that any land which is not under cultivation for three consecutive years will not be deemed to be under cultivation of any kind. Thus any growth of tree which does not fall within the definition of 'cultivation' will be a part of the private forest and will attract the Tamil Nadu Private Forest Act and thus, the Tamil Nadu Forest Act. 17. The learned Judge who has decided the case reported in Kodaikanal Wattle Bark Vyaparigal Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu , has accepted that definition of 'forest produce' includes bark but has held that although a forest produce, since there is no rule or law prohibiting its movement in cases peeled off bark is removed from the patta lands, Section 3(l) will not be attracted. We have given our anxious consideration to this aspect. Timber has been defined to include all wood. True, while defining forest produce the word 'wood' has not been used. But it is not difficult to understand that bark in its ordinary sense will be nothing but wood when removed from the tree. Because it is only the outer layer of the tree it is not wood will be a wrong understanding of the comprehensive nature of the meaning of wood that too, when while defining timber it is said 'all wood'. Because it is only the outer layer of the tree it is not wood will be a wrong understanding of the comprehensive nature of the meaning of wood that too, when while defining timber it is said 'all wood'. 'Wood' means the substance of which the roots, trunks and branches of trees or shrubs consist; trunks or other parts of trees collectively, whether growing or cut down or ready for use. Thus on facts as aforesaid, it is irresistible that bark when removed from tree will fall under the definition of timber. Learned Judge has rightly noticed that under Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules removal of timber shall constitute an offence. 18. Before we part with this judgment two more contentions raised on behalf of the respondents have to be disposed of. Our attention has been drawn to a certain communication of the 2nd respondent in Kodaikanal Wattle Bark Vyaparigal Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu , dated 14.2.1981 and 28.5.1981 to support the contention that wattle bark does not come under the description of Timber' and the Timber Transit Rules' do not apply and therefore, the forest authorities do not have the power to stop the movement of wattle bark peeled off from the trees standing in the patta lands of the private owners and that the peeling off of the bark is necessary for the growth of the tree. The second contention may have force. But it is for the Committee to decide whether such peeling off will be permitted or not. If the Committee permits and thereafter bark of a tree is peeled off there shall be no offence in removing such peeled off bark. But so long as there is no permission granted by the Committee the presumption will be that the law has been violated. So far as the first contention is concerned, with respect to the learned Judge we express that any communication of the second respondent in the case before the learned Judge, shall not change the course of law. The second respondent in that case might in his wisdom have thought that wattle bark will not come under the description of timber and the Timber Transit Rules will not apply, but he has no authority to undo the effect of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act read with Act XVII of 1955, and the Rules framed the reunder. The second respondent in that case might in his wisdom have thought that wattle bark will not come under the description of timber and the Timber Transit Rules will not apply, but he has no authority to undo the effect of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act read with Act XVII of 1955, and the Rules framed the reunder. We have already noticed that the definition of timber is comprehensive enough to include removed bark of the tree and thus the Timber Transit Rules shall apply. 19. Thus in our opinion, Kodaikanal Wattle Bark Vyaparigal Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu , has been wrongly decided. 'Peeling off wattle bark shall be covered by the prescription under Secction 3(1) of the Act read with Sub-section (2) thereof. 'Wattle bark' will fall under the definition of 'timber' and thus will attract tht Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules framed under Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act. 20. The petitioners are not entitled to any relief. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs.