JUDGMENT - J.N. PATEL, J.:---Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2.The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing the Circular dated 24-10-1986 issued by the Government of Maharashtra, Revenue Forests Department, according to which it was clarified that narpatti, chatai, petara (bamboo carpet) are forest produce within the meaning of section 2(4)(b)(i) read with section 2(6) 2(7) of the Indian Forests Act, 1927. 3.Our attention is drawn to a decision given by the Supreme Court in the case of (Suresh Lohiya v. State of Maharashtra)1, 1997(2) Bom.C.R. 656 in which it is held that bamboo mat prepared from bamboo is not a forest produce under section 2(4) of the Indian Forests Act, 1927. It is held that the expression 'forest produce' does not take within its fold an article or thing which is totally different from forest produce, having a distinct character. In the case of Suresh Lohiya, the Apex Court was considering as to whether bamboo mat is a forest produce or not and the Court has held that bamboo mat is not a forest produce in the eye of law. The articles mentioned in the impugned circular also fall in following line and have a distinct character which is totally different from forest produce. 4.Mr. Badar, learned Special Counsel appearing for the Forest Department states that this Court has taken a different view in the case of (State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Idris)2, Writ Petition No. 67/1996 decided on 31-8-1996 by placing reliance in the case of (Forest Range Officer and others v. V. P. Mohammed Ali and others)3, Criminal Appeal Nos. 420-422/1993 and (Khushboo Enterprises v. Forest Range Officer and others)4, Criminal Appeal No. 423/1993 as well as in the case Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Ltd. v. Cantreads Pvt. Ltd. We find that the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Suresh Lohiya's case would govern the field as it is the last word in the matter and while this Court disposed of the petition, State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Idris, on 31-8-1996, probably the judgment in Suresh Lohiya's case was not brought to the attention of this Court and that is why a different view has been taken. Idris, on 31-8-1996, probably the judgment in Suresh Lohiya's case was not brought to the attention of this Court and that is why a different view has been taken. 5.We are informed by the learned Counsel for the respondents/Forests Department that the State Government is moving the Union of India for necessary amendment to the Indian Forests Act so as to include such articles within the definition of forest produce. But well, that may take its own time in so far as the meaning given to the definition of forest produce by the Apex Court is concerned, will have to be accepted. Therefore, we quash and set aside the circular dated 24-10-1986. Rule made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. Rule made absolute. -----