N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J. ( 1 ) IN these two petitions the reliefs sought for by the petitioners are almost indentical viz. , to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to insist on any transit permit for transporting forest produce like seegekayi, soapnut (antiwala) on the ground that they are not, of forest produce. There is no prohibition to transmit the same, and the petitioner is transporting the same after purchasing from the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, he is not transporting from any forest. ( 2 ) IN order to know whether the transit permit is required in respect of seegekayi, soapnut (antiwala), it is proper to know the following provisions. ( 3 ) SUB-SECTION (7) of S. 2 of the Karnataka Forest Act of 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') defines what is market produce. According to the said sub-section the forest produce includes:- (a) the following whether found in or brought from a forest or not, that is to say:-"timber, charcoal, caoutchouse, catechu (sandalwood) ilotikai (capparis, mooni), wood oil, sandalwood oil, resin, rubber, natural varnish, bark, lac, mahua or ippe (bassia latifolia) flowers and seeds, seed of prosois, juliflora, kuth, and temburni or tupra (diospyros-melanoxylon) leaves, rosha, (cymbopogon mortini) grass and oil and myrabolams (terminalia chebulia, terminalit belerica (phyllanthus emblica, rampatre and shigakai) and. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "rule 145 of Karnataka Forest Rules of 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') speaks about transport or movement of forest produce. From reading of sub-sec. (7) of S. 2 of the Act, it is clear that seegakayi or antiwala are a kind of soapnut and they are forest produce. ( 4 ) THEN the question is whether while transporting these produce the transit permission is required or not. Chapter XVI of the Rules deals about the transit of forest produce and control of private saw pits, saw mills etc. , Rule 143 defines as follows :-"143. Definition - In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires, "forest produce in transit" includes forest produce found in or on the margin of any public road, whether loaded in any conveyance or not, forest produce found or being conveyed in any river, tank, lake, pond, reservoir or sea and forest produce lying in railway yards ports or air-ports whether loaded or otherwise. "rule 144 says that no person shall transport any forest produce except under and in accordance with a pass issued by a Forest Officer duly authorised in this behalf by or under these rules to issue such pass. The said rule has exempted transit permit to certain forest produce and to what type of forest produce the transit permit is exempted has been explained under proviso (a) and (b) of Rule 144 with which we are not concerned presently. Rule 144 (c) says that obtaining of transit permit is not necessary in case, of forest produce in transit within a village, municipal or corporation limits removed for bona fide purposes. Rule 145 (A) speaks about obtaining a pass for transport or removal of forest produce and in what manner it shall be etc. , Rule 145 (A) (3) says that obtaining of pass for transport or removal of forest produce from inam lands or private lands including coffee lands permit shall be yellow in colour in Form 28 and issued by the authority in respect of the said quantum and R. 145 (A) (4) says that when the forest produce are to be transported or removed from private market or from outside the State it shall be green in colour in Form 29 issued by a Forest Officer not below the rank of a Forester. ( 5 ) FROM the reading of the above provisions, it is clear that obtaining a transit permit to transport seegekayi or antiwala etc. , is necessary unless they come within the exemption clauses. ( 6 ) IN case where the forest produce has been purchased either from a private business man or from APMC Market Yard transit permit is not required but, the same has to be established by producing necessary proof. ( 7 ) EARLIER under similar circumstances this Court in case of Ullal Madhava Nayak v. State of Karnataka (W. P. No. 1119 etc. / 1975 dated 14-10-1976) reported in (1977 (1) Kant LJ (SN) short Notes. ( 7 ) EARLIER under similar circumstances this Court in case of Ullal Madhava Nayak v. State of Karnataka (W. P. No. 1119 etc. / 1975 dated 14-10-1976) reported in (1977 (1) Kant LJ (SN) short Notes. Item No. 108 page 92) explaining the scope of Section 2 (7) of the Act has held as follows :"karnataka Forest Act, 1963, Section 2 (7) - Soapnut, if Forest Produce: Assuming that soapnut is a fruit or other part or produce of a tree, it could be said to be a forest produce set out under Section 2 (7) (b) of the Act, only when it is found in or brought from the forest. In the absence of such proof, the liability to obtain transit passes does not arise. " ( 8 ) IN view of the legal requirement and its interpretation in UIlal's case it is for the petitioner even now to show to the concerned Forest Officer that the forest, produce like soapnut, seegekayi, antiwala etc. , which was/ is under transport was not/is required to obtain any transit, permit as it was/ is under transport from APMC or some other private business man. If such a proof is produced the authorities shall not insist on transit permit. ( 9 ) WITH the above observations, these two writ petitions are disposed of. ( 10 ) SRI Pradeep Rai, learned High Court Government Pleader who was heard for respondents in this petition is permitted to file his memo of appearance in this petition as well as in W. P. 14357/ 1992. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .