JUDGMENT : D.S. Sinha, J. Heard Sri Amarendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner who, indisputably, deals in timber and fire wood at Anand Nagar in the district of Maharajganj, prays that this Court may issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to realise any penalty and transit-fee on the transportation of timber by it to its customers from Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti. Further prayer of the petitioner is that the Court may direct the respondents to refund the penalty and transit-fee already realised. 3. In the opinion of the Court, the petition is misconceived. 4. Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter called the Act) empowers the State Government to make rules to regulate transit of forest-produce. In exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Section 41 of the Act, the Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh have framed rules known as the Uttar Pradesh Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules. 1978 (hereinafter called the Rules). 5. Rule 3 of the Rules provides that no forest produce shall be moved into or from or within the State of Uttar Pradesh except as provided in the Rules, without a transit pass issued by the competent authority on payment of the prescribed fees. 6. Under Rule 28 of the Rules, whoever Contravenes any of the provisions of the rules is liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both. 7. The Rules do not define the expression, 'Forest-Produce'. The expression, 'Forest-Produce' is defined in sub-section (4) of Section 2 of the Act. According to the definition, Forest-Produce' includes, inter alia, the timber'. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner, in connection with its business of timber and fire-wood, moves and transports the timber which is a forest-produce. Thus, the petitioner is obliged to obtain a transit pass for the movement and transportation of the timber and fire-wood under Rule 3 of the Rules. In default, the petitioner would expose himself to the consequences prescribed under Rule 28 of the Rules. The prayer of the petitioner, in substance, is for a direction to the respondents not to act in accordance with the Act and Rules. No writ of mandamus can be issued to disobey the law. 9. In default, the petitioner would expose himself to the consequences prescribed under Rule 28 of the Rules. The prayer of the petitioner, in substance, is for a direction to the respondents not to act in accordance with the Act and Rules. No writ of mandamus can be issued to disobey the law. 9. For what has been stated above, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed summarily. The interim order dated 9.2.1994 is vacated. The transit-fee and penalty not realised from the petitioner in pursuance of the interim order of this Court, shall be realised forthwith. There is no order as to costs.