Judgment Sachchidanand Jha, J. 1. In this petition by M/s Ranchi Timber Traders Association in the representative capacity on behalf of 156 members, list whereof has been furnished in Annexure-1, the vires of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990 (the Act, in short) and the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules 1993 (the Rules, in short) has been questioned. 2. The Act is said to be colourable exercise of legislative power. It is said, in support of the plea, that the State Government in exercise of power under Sections 41, 42 and 76 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 had framed Bihar Rules for the Establishment of Saw Pits and Establishment and Regulation of Depots 1983 in respect of the establishment of saw pits and timber depots which was held by this Court to be ultra vires, vide judgment reported in 1984 BBCJ 8 . The State Preferred S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 16877-84 of 1983 against the said judgment. By order dated 16.4.84, the Supreme Court stayed the judgment of this Court and restored the interim order of this Court passed in the connected writ petitions. Reference was made to the order dated 15.3.1983 passed in C.W.J.C. 188 of 1983 (R), Annexure-2. By the said interim order the petitioners were permitted to apply for licence and the Divisional Forest Officer was directed to grant the licence without prejudice to the contentions. It was, accordingly, submitted that by reason of the aforesaid interim order of the Supreme Court dated 16.4.84 granting stay of the High Courts judgment and restoration of its interim, as aforesaid, the 1983 Rules must be deemed to have continued to be in force. Counsel for the petitioners, however after making submissions on the point very fairly conceded that mere, interim order of stay does not result in revival of the law which has already been held to be ultra vires. The Government Advocate on behalf of the State stated that the State does not wish to pursue the aforesaid appeals in the Supreme Court. He, in fact, drew our attention to an order dated 17.2.92 passed in one of them, namely, Civil Appeal No. 2091 of 1984 by which the appeal was dismissed and the interim order dated 16.4.84 vacated. The Government Advocate on behalf of the State stated that the State does not wish to pursue the aforesaid appeals in the Supreme Court. He, in fact, drew our attention to an order dated 17.2.92 passed in one of them, namely, Civil Appeal No. 2091 of 1984 by which the appeal was dismissed and the interim order dated 16.4.84 vacated. Government Advocate further stated that the statement may be recorded that the other appeals too will not be pressed, Accordingly, the plea that the impugned legislation is colourable exercise of legislative power on the aforesaid ground is rejected. 3. Counsel for the petitioners challenged the legislative competence of the State to make law with respect to Environment. Reference was made to the preamble of the Act which states that the Act was being made to regulate in the public interest the establishment and operation of saw-mills and saw-pits and trade of sawing for the protection and conservation of forest and the environment. It was submitted that the State has no legislative competence to make any law with respect to the environment and, thus, the Act suffers from the vice of legislative incompetence. 4. It is well settled that although the preamble is part of the Act it does not enact the law. It can be looked into for the purpose of finding out its aims and objects or resolving any ambiguity as an aid in construction of a provision. The question of legislative competence has to be judged not on the basis of what is said in the preamble but what is contained in the substantive provision of the Act. Counsel for the petitioners could not point out any provision in the Act or the Rules touching upon the environment. The provisions are intended to regulate the establishment and operation of saw-mills and saw-pits and trade of sawing. The Act is fully covered by Entry 17-A of List III of VIIth Schedule to the Constitution, namely, Forests. The said entry was Entry 19 of List II until the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution. The provisions are intended to regulate the establishment and operation of saw-mills and saw-pits and trade of sawing. The Act is fully covered by Entry 17-A of List III of VIIth Schedule to the Constitution, namely, Forests. The said entry was Entry 19 of List II until the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution. Dealing with the scope and meaning of the term forests as occurring in Entry 19 of List II as it stood prior to the 42nd Amendment, a Full Bench of Five Judges of the Bombay High Court in the case of Janu Chandra Waghmare V/s. The State of Maharashtra -- held that the term forests in its normal and popular connotation includes all that goes with it, such as, trees with fruits on them, shrubs, bushes, woody vegetation, undergrowth, pastures, honey-combs attached to trees, juices dried on trees, things embedded in the earth like mines and quarries with their produce locked up in the land, wild and stray animal living in the forest, described by the Compendious expression forest produce. It was stated that even if any forest produce is severed from its place of birth or origin through the intervention of a human agency, if such severed forest produce continues to lie in the forest in its primary or predominantly primary state without anything being done to it for altering or changing its natural condition, the same will still form part of the forest produce. I have no manner of doubt having regard to the extended meaning of the term forests, as interpreted by the Bombay High Court, that any law to regulate the trade of sawing and establishment and operation of saw-mills and saw-pits will fall under Entry No. 17-A of List III. 5. Counsel for the petitioners, however, referred to Entry 36 of Ist Schedule to the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act 1951 and submitted that the timber being covered by declaration in terms of Sec. 2 of the said Act, the State Legislature is not competent to enact any law with respect to wood or timber. The Industries (Development & Regulation) Act 1951 has been enacted to provide for the development and Regulation of certain industries. Different industries have been specified in the Schedule with respect to which Sec. 2 provides for the control by the Central Government. The Act contains provisions for development and Regulation of the concerned industries. The Industries (Development & Regulation) Act 1951 has been enacted to provide for the development and Regulation of certain industries. Different industries have been specified in the Schedule with respect to which Sec. 2 provides for the control by the Central Government. The Act contains provisions for development and Regulation of the concerned industries. So far as trade of sawing or establishment or operation of saw-mills and saw-pits are concerned, counsel could not point out as to how the same can be covered by items such as plywood, Hardboard or fibre board, cap board and the like, matches furniture components, bobins, shuttles and the like, as enumerated in Entry 36. Accordingly, I do not find any substance in the submission as to the legislative incompetence. 6. Learned Counsel then submitted that Sec. 6 of the Act confers arbitrary powers on the State Government to declare any area to be prohibited area resulting in consequences as set forth in Sub-section(2) thereof inasmuch as no guidelines have been laid down for exercise of the power. The Government Advocate on the other hand submitted that in view of the provision as contained in Rule 5 of the Rules, the provisions of Sec. 6 of the Act cannot be said to be arbitrary. 7. Sec. 6 empowers the State Government to declare an area to be a prohibited area. Sub-sec. (2) provides that during the period in which the declaration is effective no licence for establishment or saw-mill or saw-pit shall be granted or renewed in the area. It also provides that a saw-mill or saw-pit situate in the area shall cease to operate and keep its sawing operation closed and no claims on account of the damages because of closure shall be entertained nor any damage shall be payable. It would appear from Sub-section(1) that an area can be declared to be prohibited area only for a limited period not exceeding three years at a time and for reasons to be prescribed in the notification. It would appear from Sub-section(1) that an area can be declared to be prohibited area only for a limited period not exceeding three years at a time and for reasons to be prescribed in the notification. Rule 5 provides that in the event of declaration of any area as prohibited area under Sec. 6, any licensed saw-mill or saw-pit shall be allowed to operate in that area for six months from the date of such declaration provided that the said saw-mill or saw-pit shall not receive any new wood for sawing and shall saw only such wood which has been received till date of such declaration. It also provides that any such licensed saw-mill or saw-pit existing in such prohibited area shall be given preference as far as possible in granting licence in new area. In my opinion. Sec. 6 of the Act and Rule 5 of the Rules read-together provide enough safeguard and protection to the licensees firstly, because the declaration will be effective only for specific period not exceeding three years at a time; secondly, because the reasons for doing so have to be assigned and if the reasons are not germane or relevant, the declaration is liable to be anulled as being arbitrary and thirdly, because the sawing operation does not come to an end for six months and in the meantime, the licensee is entitled to grant of a fresh licence in another area. I, accordingly, do not find any merit in this plea of the petitioners either. 8. Counsel also challenged the vires of provisions as contained in Rule 3(4)(II) of the Rules. It was submitted that the said Rule debars unregistered firm from carrying on trade and business in sawing or establishment of saw-mills and saw-pits. The said rule provides that no person shall be permitted to file an application on behalf of any person or company until he encloses an executed copy of the power of attorney authorising him to work on behalf of such person or company and produces its original or certificate of the registration of such company of which he claims to be a partner. Counsel for the State submitted that the rule, in terms, does not prohibit an unregistered firm from making application for licence. The rule in my opinion, is not happily worded. Its import is not clear to me. Counsel for the State submitted that the rule, in terms, does not prohibit an unregistered firm from making application for licence. The rule in my opinion, is not happily worded. Its import is not clear to me. However, this grievance can be disposed of with an observation that if, in future, the application for licence on behalf of an unregistered firm is rejected on the ground of non-compliance of Rule 3(4)(ii), it will be open to it to challenge the action in accordance with law at that stage. 9. Counsel lastly referred to the provisions of Rules 4(2)(a) and 8 of the Rules. The former lays down that the sawing operations in the saw-mill and saw-pit shall not be carried out after sunset and before sunrise. The latter enjoins the licensing officer to submit a list of person who are already operating saw-mills or the persons who have obtained licence for establishing and operating new saw mills as also list of those who are operating the saw mills without valid licence or whose licence has been revoked or suspended. The provisions, in my opinion, are regulatory in nature. Rule 8 seeks to ensure that unscrupulous person may not stealthily operate the saw-mill or saw-pits without a valid licence. If electricity is not supplied, it is obvious that they can operate it. As regards Rule 4(2)(a) merely because in exigency of situation the electricity is not supplied during day hours it cannot be said that the requirement that sawing operation shall be carried out only during the day time is bad. The work of sawing operation is hazardous in nature. The provision intends to provide safeguards against hazards of sawing operation. It cannot be faulted merely because the supply position of electricity is not regular. These provisions too, accordingly, do not appear to be arbitrary at all. 10. No other provision of the Act or the Rules was cited as being bad; No other point was argued. 11. The grievance of the petitioners has no merit. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 12. Amir Das, J. I agree. Q