JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. - Sole question that needs determination in this writ petition, is whether in the absence of a notification issued under Section 7 of the Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade), Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), respondent can fix the rates on the basis of some proceedings of the committee without giving legal shape as envisaged under the said Section or not. As such, before dealing with facts of this case, it is necessary to refer to the scheme of the Act. 2. Act in question was enacted for regulating in public interest, the trade of certain forest produce by creation of full State control over it. With a view to achieve this object, provision is made in this Act. So far forest produce standing on the lands of private owners as per revenue records is concerned, it is to be purchased by the State Government and for this purpose State Government can appoint one or more agents in respect of different forest divisions on such terms and conditions as may be laid by the State Government. This is the import of Section 3 of the Act. There is absolute restriction on sale, purchase and transportation of the forest produce after and on the commencement of the Act by the owner of forest produce to a person other than the State Government or the agent appointed under Section 3 of the Act. State Government through its authorized officer or its agent has to purchase the forest produce from the owner. There is also restriction on transportation of forest produce by any person without permit issued in that behalf, subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Rules framed there under. This is sum and substance of Section 4 of the Act. A duty is enjoined for the purchase of forest produce offered for sale by its owner at a price fixed under Section 7 of the Act. 3. Sections 6 and 7 of the Act have material bearing for determining this case. As such, those are being extracted herein below for ready reference:- "6. Constitution of Advisory Committee. A duty is enjoined for the purchase of forest produce offered for sale by its owner at a price fixed under Section 7 of the Act. 3. Sections 6 and 7 of the Act have material bearing for determining this case. As such, those are being extracted herein below for ready reference:- "6. Constitution of Advisory Committee. - The State Government shall from time to time, constitute for each division in which forest produce is grown or found, an Advisory Committee which shall consist of not more than 5 members nominated by the State Government. (2) The Advisory Committee for each such division shall advice the State Government in the matter of fixation from time to time of a fair and reasonable price at which forest produce offered for sale may be purchased by or on behalf of the State Government in that division and also on such other matters as may be referred to it by the State Government. (3) The business of the Committee shall be conducted in such manner as may be prescribed. "7. Government to fix price in consultation with the Committee.-The State Government shall after consultation with the committee constituted under Section 6, fix the price at which forest produce shall be purchased at various places by it or by any of its authorized officers or agent from the owner of the forest produce and shall publish the same in the Official Gazettee in or such other manner as may be prescribed. The price so fixed shall remain in force upto the end of such financial year and shall not be altered during that financial year; Provided that if the Committee fails to tender advise by the 15th of February preceding the financial year, the State Government may proceed to fix the price without consultation of the Committee; Provided further that the State Government through its authorized officer or agent may purchase the forest produce till the constitution of the Committee at a price mutually agreed upon between the parties to the sale." 4. A perusal of different provisions of the Act in general, and Sections 6 and 7 in particular, clearly indicates that on the Government of the Act, a complete ban has been created in respect of sale, purchase as well as transportation of the forest produce offered by its owners, of course, as per programme under Section 8(1) of the Act. A perusal of different provisions of the Act in general, and Sections 6 and 7 in particular, clearly indicates that on the Government of the Act, a complete ban has been created in respect of sale, purchase as well as transportation of the forest produce offered by its owners, of course, as per programme under Section 8(1) of the Act. An owner of the forest produce is not to be deprived by the State Government in the matter fixation of fair and reasonable price at which the forest produce offered for sale may be purchased by or on behalf of the State Government in a particular forest division as envisaged under Section 6(1) of the Act extracted herein below. For this purpose, law authorises the State Government to constitute advisory committees. This Committee can also advise on other matters as may be prescribed by the State Government. On receipt of advice of the Advisory Committee, State Government shall after consultation with the committee under Section 6 of the Act, has to fix the price at which forest produce is to be purchased at various places by it or by its authorised officer or agent, as the case may be, from the owner. 5. This is statutorily required to be published in official gazettee or in such other manner, as may be prescribed. The price so fixed is to remain in force upto the end of each financial year and is not to be altered during that financial year, subject of course to provisos to Section 7 of the Act. As per first proviso where committee fails to tender advice by the 15th of February preceding the financial year, State Government may proceed to fix the price without consultation of the Committee. And till the constitution of the Committee, State Government through its authorised officer or agent, as the case may be, can purchase the forest produce at mutually agreed price between the parties to the sale. 6. When this case was heard on 24.12.2003, Managing Director of respondent-Corporation was present along with record pertaining to this case. He along with two other officers of the respondent-Corporation assisted Shri Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. 6. When this case was heard on 24.12.2003, Managing Director of respondent-Corporation was present along with record pertaining to this case. He along with two other officers of the respondent-Corporation assisted Shri Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. A fact that also needs to be noted here, is that notification in consonance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Act issued by the State Government on 3.4.1991, copy whereof is Annexure P-7 with the writ petition. It was not disputed on behalf of respondent by its learned Counsel that till the filing of the writ petition, no notification within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act had been issued by the State Government fixing the price at which forest produce of an owner like petitioner was to be purchased either by the State Government or its authorised officer or an agent like the respondent during the financial year 1994-95, the relevant period for the purpose of the Act. 7. In this behalf, it may be observed that agreement in question Annexure P-4 was entered into between the deceased mother of the petitioner on one side and the respondent on the other through its Divisional Manager, Forest Working Division, Mandi vide Annexure P-4, (respondent has placed its copy Annexure R-IV). If there is a notification under Section 7 of the Act, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that his client will be governed by it (published notification) for price/payment of forest produce offered for sale to respondent. In the absence of any notification, now the price is to be offered, is the question to be decided in this writ petition as observed above. 8. Forest produce, i.e. trees as detailed in the agreement were owned by the mother of the petitioner who offered those for sale by the petitioner. Those were taken over by the respondent, felled, sawn and converted into scants etc. and have been sold. All these facts are not disputed by the respondent. And this position is even otherwise clearly established from the pleadings of the parties, as well as from the documents produced by both the parties from the contemporaneous official record of the respondent. However, for ready reference, paragraph Nos. 2 to 4 of the writ petition as Well as of the reply filed by the respondent, are extracted herein below: "2. However, for ready reference, paragraph Nos. 2 to 4 of the writ petition as Well as of the reply filed by the respondent, are extracted herein below: "2. That the petitioner is* the owner of the land comprised in Khasra No. 1011/936, situate in Mauja Jhatingri, Muhal Jilhan, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. Apart from other trees, there were 146 trees of Deodar, the petitioner offered the trees of Deodar to the Forest Corporation (respondent) for sale in accordance with the Act and Rules known as H.P. Forest Produce (Regulation of trade), Act, 1982. For this purpose, the petitioners mother filed the application under rule 4(1) of the rules framed under the Act. The said application is placed on the file as Annexure P1/A. Thereafter, the Division Manager, Forest Corporation vide letter dated 3.5.1994 asked the Divisional Forest Officer, Joginder Nagar to verify the facts through Shri Chattar Singh holder of Power of Attorney. The letter is placed on the file as Annexure-P2 and its English translation as Annexure P-2/A. 3. That after verifying alt the facts, the Divisional Forest Officer, Joginder Nagar passed the felling order, which order dated 6.12.1994 is placed on the file as Annexure P-3. 4. That after felling order contained in Annexure-P3, there was an agreement on 2.3.1995 with the respondent for the sale of trees through Shri Ashok Pal Sen, the Agreement as placed on the file as Annexure-P4.lt is submitted that at that time, Shri Ashok Pal Sen was the holder of Power of Attorney on behalf of the petitioners mother. Para 2: In reply to Para-2 of the Writ Petition, it is submitted that the petitioner has offered 146 trees of Deodar to H.P.S.F.C. in accordance with HP Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1982. Thereafter, Divisional Manager, Forest Corporation, Mandi has referred the case to Divisional Forest Officer, Joginder Nagar to verify the facts/trees lying on the Khasra No. 1011/936, copy of which is Annexure R-1. In fact, the HP State Foresf Corporation is only an agency to convert the trees into timber and further sells it as per provision of H.P. Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1982. The exact position of the trees lying in Khasra No. 1011/936 is to be ascertained from the Divisional Forest Officer, Joginder Nagar, which is not arrayed as one of the necessary parties in the Writ Petition. The exact position of the trees lying in Khasra No. 1011/936 is to be ascertained from the Divisional Forest Officer, Joginder Nagar, which is not arrayed as one of the necessary parties in the Writ Petition. Para 3 : In reply to contents of para-3 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the Divisional Forest Officer, Joginder Nagar issued felling order vide his letter No. 6740 dated 16.12.1994 in favour of Smt. Kusum Kumari through Sh. Chattar Singh copy whereof is annexed as Annexure R-2. The payment has been made, as per notification and decision of the Pricing Committee. The petitioner is not entitled for any payment as allegedly claimed by him in the Writ Petition. Para 4: Contents of Para 4 of the writ petition are wrong and therefore, denied. It may be submitted here that the Power of Attorney given to Sh. Ashok Pal Sen stands revoked. The Power of Attorney has now been given to Sh. Chattar Singh. 9. In the aforesaid factual background, petitioner claims that a specific amount of Rs. 6, 31,604 /- is due and payable to him by the respondent. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, so far this amount is concerned, there is no dispute and with a view to support the case of his client, Mr. Dogra laid great emphasis on Annexure P-8. 10. No doubt Mr. Sood, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent stated that this is an ultra departmental correspondence and it confers on right on the petitioner to claim the amount mentioned in it or any other amount, as according to him, every penny due and payable as per provisions of the Act, stands paid. As such, writ petition is not maintainable. 11. Petitioner alleges that he is being deprived of his property in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, therefore, respondent-Corporation is liable to be commanded to pay this amount and also to decide the representations made by him vide Annexures P-9 and P-10. So far these representations are concerned, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that those stand already rejected of which fact, petitioner is well aware. 12. When put to notice, stand of the respondent is that this writ petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, i.e. the State of Himachal Pradesh and Divisional Forest Officer, Joginder Nagar. So far these representations are concerned, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that those stand already rejected of which fact, petitioner is well aware. 12. When put to notice, stand of the respondent is that this writ petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, i.e. the State of Himachal Pradesh and Divisional Forest Officer, Joginder Nagar. Since disputed questions of fact are involved which need determination in the writ petition, legal remedy for the petitioner, if any, is to file a civil suit. Another preliminary objection taken in the reply is that Ashok Pal Sen is not the holder of Power of Attorney as the same in his favour stands revoked. Shri Chattar Singh was the Attorney of Raj Mata Smt. Kusum Kumari. Regarding status of the petitioner, as detailed in paragraph No. 2 of the writ petition and his right to claim amount is concerned, it was not expressly denied as required under law of pleadings. This position is clear from para-2 of the writ petition as extracted hereinabove. By referring to Annexure R-ll, i.e. proceedings of the Pricing Committee held on 1.3.1994, it is pleaded that rates have not only been fixed of forest produce of the owners like petitioner, but in fact have been paid to all of them. Regarding representation, it is the stand of the respondent, that it was not received by the respondent qua forest produce standing on Khasra No. 1011/936 is concerned. All other pleas set up by the petitioner have been controverted. 13. In the rejoinder filed to the reply, one peculiar fact that was highlighted is to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to price of his forest produce in accordance with economic system which has been determined by the respondent. Again, reliance as well as emphasis was laid on Annexure P-8. So far signing of agreement Annexure P-4 is concerned, its perusal shows that it was entered into under protest. This position has been clarified in the rejoinder. As already observed at the time of hearing of this writ petition, original record relating to this case was produced by respondent in Court. 14. Original of Annexure P-4 clearly shows that it was signed under protest. What is its effect will be dealt with hereinafter. This position has been clarified in the rejoinder. As already observed at the time of hearing of this writ petition, original record relating to this case was produced by respondent in Court. 14. Original of Annexure P-4 clearly shows that it was signed under protest. What is its effect will be dealt with hereinafter. When specifically asked, Mr.Sood, learned Counsel for the respondent stated that after issuance of Annexure P-7 in the year 1991, there is no notification issued by the State Government in accordance with Section 7 of the Act, relevant for the financial year concerned, i.e. from 1.4.1994 to 31.3.1995, though great emphasis was laid by him on Annexure R-II, the recommendation of the pricing committee. 15. However, in the absence of a notification statutorily required, or price fixed under either of the provisos to Section 7 of the Act, respondent as an admitted agent of the State Government under the Act, cannot be permitted to urge that in the absence of notification, it shall follow the minutes of proceedings held vide Annexure R-ll. In my considered view, Section 7 of the Act clearly lays down method of fixing prices, even where the committee under Section 6 of the Act to fix the price had been constituted or not. Because provisos to Section 7 (supra) take care of such situation. 16. Purpose of Section 7 and its provisos appears to be, that the State Government or its agent has to purchase the forest produce as per programme, as provided under Section 8 of the Act, so that period of felling programme does not large under the provisions of H.P.Land Preservation Act, 1978. Cycle of allowing for felling the trees to owners like petitioner, under this 1978 Act comes after 10 years. For ready reference, Section 8 of the Act is reproduced as under:- "8. State Government or agent to purchase forest produce as per programme. Cycle of allowing for felling the trees to owners like petitioner, under this 1978 Act comes after 10 years. For ready reference, Section 8 of the Act is reproduced as under:- "8. State Government or agent to purchase forest produce as per programme. - (1) The authorised officer or an agent shall purchase from the owner the forest produce offered for sale according to the felling programme as may be formulated under the Himachal Pradesh Land Preservation Act, 1978 (28 of 1978) at the price fixed under Section 7, (2) The State Government through its authorised officer or the agent may make such advances of money on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed to the owners whose forest produce is covered by the felling programme under the Himachal Pradesh Land Preservation Act, 1978 (28 of 1978)." 17. In the face of the admitted fact that no notification had been issued by the State Government under Section 7 of the Act, for the period 1.4.1994 to 31.3.1995, then how the matter is to be salvaged ? Answer to this is found in Annexure P-8, as well as in the decision of this Court in Ishwar Dutt and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, CWP No. 629 of 1991, decided on 18.12.1996. Annexure P-8, as already observed, was not disputed on behalf of respondent, except for arguing that it is an intra-departmental correspondence, so no benefit can be derived by the petitioner. 18. A perusal of Annexure P-8 clearly suggests that after dealing with the matter in its entirely and after taking care of all financial aspects so far claim of the respondent is concerned, out of the gross sale proceeds expenses etc. having been calculated on royalty and economic basis, are made in it. It is only then that an ascertained sum of Rs. 6, 31,604/- was stated to be payable. 19. Again when pointedly asked as to on what basis this amount was worked out, Mr. Sood, learned Counsel for the respondent, stated it to be no economic basis. 20. Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition 629 of 1991 (supra) has material bearing and is relevant for determining the present case. In this case, matter relating to issuance of notification under Section 7 of the Act and in its absence, notification dated 3.4.1991, Annexure P-7 to this writ petition, came for consideration. 20. Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition 629 of 1991 (supra) has material bearing and is relevant for determining the present case. In this case, matter relating to issuance of notification under Section 7 of the Act and in its absence, notification dated 3.4.1991, Annexure P-7 to this writ petition, came for consideration. What was held and has material bearing in this case, is in the following terms:- 5. As regards the notification, which is found in Annexure P-11, we do not find any merit in the contention urged by learned Counsel for the petitioners. We are not able to find out anything, which is contrary to the provisions of the Act or Rules or any provisions of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice. The economic system, which has been invoked and adopted by the Forest Corporation has been found by the Government to be enforceable and acceptable and on that basis, the notification has been issued. Section 7 of the Act contains two provisos. Under the first proviso, if the Committee fails to tender advice by the 15th of February preceding the financial year, the State Government may proceed to fix the price without consultation of the Committee. That will arise only if there is a Committee and it fails to tender advice for fixing the price in different Forest Divisions. The second proviso read that the State Government through its authorised officer or agent may purchase the forest produce till the Constitution of the Committee at a price mutually agreed upon between the parties to the sale. Under the second proviso, it is open to the State Government to fix the price even if there is ho Advisory Committee, under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act. It is only the said provision, under which the notification dated 3.4.1991 has been issued by the Government fixing the price for different forest produce. We do not find any illegality whatever in the said notification. 21. Learned Counsel for the respondent again was asked as to whether this judgment has attained finality, his answer was in the affirmative. It is only the said provision, under which the notification dated 3.4.1991 has been issued by the Government fixing the price for different forest produce. We do not find any illegality whatever in the said notification. 21. Learned Counsel for the respondent again was asked as to whether this judgment has attained finality, his answer was in the affirmative. In the face of Annexure P-7, and its Clause 2(ii), which when translated in English, reads as under:- "(II) 40% of the price as fixed by the pricing committee for Kail, Cheel and other spices of trees (without royalty and the price fixed by economic system which ever is more)." 22. A perusal of this clause further indicates that the petitioner is entitled to the price of his forest produce at a rate which was higher between royalty and economic basis. This is what he is claiming, and this is what was granted by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ishwar Dutt and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (supra). In this behalf, it may also be observed that Annexure P-7 will hold the ground. Reason being that it was held applicable to the facts in the case of Ishwar Dutt (supra). And in the absence of notification fixing price under Section 7 of the Act, it was applied by the Division Bench. 23. In the aforesaid background from the admitted and established facts, it is evident that petitioner is entitled to the price of the forest produce from the respondent on the basis of Annexure P-7 and its clause (II), as well as on the basis of the specified amount as contained in Annexure P-8. How the writ raises a disputed question of fact in the face of Annexures P-7 and P-8, as well as Division Bench decision of this Court (supra), learned Counsel was not able to satisfy the Court. Further, it is also not the case of the respondent that on economic basis, sum of Rs. 6, 31, 604/- is not the sum due and payable to the petitioner. And/or the calculation made in Annexure P-8 is not correct. Therefore, amount mentioned in Annexure P-8, is liable to be paid to the petitioner, though liability to pay the same was vehemently disputed by Mr. Sood, learned Counsel for the respondent. 6, 31, 604/- is not the sum due and payable to the petitioner. And/or the calculation made in Annexure P-8 is not correct. Therefore, amount mentioned in Annexure P-8, is liable to be paid to the petitioner, though liability to pay the same was vehemently disputed by Mr. Sood, learned Counsel for the respondent. Similarly, no action of the State of Himachal Pradesh or its Officer, i.e. Divisional Forest Officer, Joginder Nagar in any manner impinges upon the claim of the petitioner projected in this writ petition. Therefore, to saw that writ petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party is also a plea raised to be rejected. 24. No other point is urged. 25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is allowed and as a result of it, petitioner is held entitled for sum of Rs. 6, 31,604/-and the respondent-Corporation is directed to pay the same as per Annexure P-8 having been worked out on economic basis, by or before 1.3.2004 by remitting the same through the bankers cheque or demand draft to the petitioner at its own expense. In case needful is not done by or before this date, respondent shall also be liable for payment of interest on this amount at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from 1.7.1996 till the date of its payment. No costs.