Judgment S.N. Jha, CJ.-This writ petition has been filed challenging the vires of the Rajasthan Forest Produce (Establishment & Regulation of Saw Mills) Rules, 1983 (for short the Rules) specially Rules 3,4,7,8,9,10,11,13 and 16 and Schedules A and B thereof . 2. At the outset we may observe that the vires of the Rules has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Aara Machine & Lakri Vikreta Sangh, Nagour vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1991 (1) RLW 487. Learned Counsel for the petitioner however submitted that the grounds on which vires has been challenged in the present case, were not urged in the earlier case. Counsel submitted that the Rules have been framed in exercise of powers under Sections 41 and 42 of the Rajasthan Forests Act, 1953 (for short, the Act) but from a bare glance it will appear that Section 41, confers powers to frame rules to regulate transit of forests produce and not to regulate the establishment of saw mills, while Section 42, provides for penalty for breach of rules framed under Section 41. The submission appears to be attractive but is devoid of any substance. 3. Sub-section (1) of Section 41, empowers the State Government to make rules to regulate the transit of all timber and other forest produce. In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the said power, Sub-section (2) empowers the Government to make rules on following subjects to:- (g) provide for the prevention or removal of any obstruction of the channel or banks of any such river, and for recovering the cost to such prevention or removal from the person whose acts or negligence necessitated the same; (h) prohibit absolutely or subject to conditions with specified local limits, the establishment of sawpits, the converting, cutting, burning, concealing or marking to timber, the altering of effacing of any marks on the same or the possession or carrying of marking hammers or other implements used for marking timber." 4. Apart from the fact that under Clause (h) of Sub-section (2) of Section 41, the State Government can prohibit the establishment of sawpits, we are of the view that establishment of sawpits and business of running sawpits and saw mills has close nexus with the transit of forest produce. Apart from the fact that under Clause (h) of Sub-section (2) of Section 41, the State Government can prohibit the establishment of sawpits, we are of the view that establishment of sawpits and business of running sawpits and saw mills has close nexus with the transit of forest produce. Forest is grown only in forest areas and unless and until there is movement of falled timber, it cannot be moved to saw mills and sawpits for the purpose of cutting, sizing etc. Therefore, in exercise of power under Section 41 regulating the transit of forest produce, it is open to the Government to regulate the establishment of saw mills, for, unless the saw mills are brought under the jurisdiction of the officials of the Forest Department, they cannot have the power to inspect the saw mills/ sawpits and verify whether the timber kept therein was brought under valid permit or not. 5. Indeed, the Division Bench in the case of Aara Machine & Lakri Vikreta Sangh (Supra), made somewhat similar observations as under:-"We are, however, unable to find any substance in the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The object behind regulating the saw mills and its activities is to prevent illicit felling of trees on account of which ecological problems and many others had cropped up. Felling of trees is likely to be controlled by regulating the trade of timber cutting by the saw mill owners. The State Government will have the power to prosecute a person who does it without obtaining prior permission……………. Any customer who brings goods to the saw mills for cutting, has to show that the felling of the trees took place under the permission of the authorities and for this purpose, he will have to obtain the necessary certificate from the authority concerned. In our opinion, the Govt. have put a check on the felling of indiscriminately trees, which is necessary for effectually implementing the rules." 6. In our opinion, the Govt. have put a check on the felling of indiscriminately trees, which is necessary for effectually implementing the rules." 6. It may also be useful to notice further observations in the Judgment as under:-"The test to apply in considering whether rules are within the powers of the rule making authority under the statute are: (1) whether the rules are reasonable and convenient for carrying the Act into full effect, (2) whether the rules relate to matters arising under the provisions of the Act, (3) whether they relate to matters not in the Act otherwise provided for and (4) whether they are consistent with the provisions of the Act. The basic law applicable for interpretation of the rules is whether it confers right or merely regulates procedure. After examination of the rules, we are satisfied that the power given covers the purported exercise of it and that no other provision in the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 is being infringed." 7. In the above premises, we are satisfied that the challenge to the vires of the Rules is covered by the decision referred above in the Aara Machine & Lakdi Vikreta Sangh. The rules having been validity framed in exercise of powers under Sections 41 and 42 of the Act, they do not suffer from any infirmity to call for any interference by this Court. 8. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.