Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Tapash Mookherjee, J.
Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Limited & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P. 26576 (W) of 2014, C.A.N. 8959 of 2016
Decided On : 22-12-2016
JUTE INDUSTRY - PACKAGING MATERIALS (COMPULSORY USE IN PACKAGING COMMODITIES) ACT, 1987 - JUTE AND JUTE TEXTILE CONTROL ORDER, 2016 - PRODUCTION CONTROL ORDER (P.C.O.) - JUTE TECHNOLOGY MISSION - MINI-MISSION - IV - JUTE PARKS - PRODUCTION OF JUTE DIVERSIFIED PRODUCTS - JUTE SACKING BAGS - ISSUANCE OF P.C.O. TO ANCHOR UNIT IN JUTE PARK - CONDITIONS AND CRITERIA - JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION - ARBITRARY AND DISCRIMINATORY ACTION - EXERCISE OF DISCRETION.
Fact of the Case:
Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Limited, the petitioner, set up a composite jute manufacturing unit as the anchor unit for the manufacture of jute textiles, including traditional jute sacks, within the Shakatigarh Jute Park under Mini-Mission-IV of the 'Jute Technology Mission.' The petitioner's mill became commercially functional in 2013, but the downstream units within the jute park were not fully operational. The petitioner repeatedly approached the Jute Commissioner for granting P.C.O. under Rule 4 of the Jute Control Order, 2016, for the sustenance and survival of their industry within the jute park. However, their prayer was not considered by the Jute Commissioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the decision of the Jute Commissioner not to issue any P.C.O. in favor of the petitioner/company was arbitrary, discriminating, and against the basic principle of equality. The court further held that the Jute Commissioner failed to exercise his discretion judiciously.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any P.C.O. for their unit set up within the Jute Park of 'Shakatigarh Textile and Industries Limited at Barshul, Shaktigarh, within the District Burdwan. 2. Whether the Jute Commissioner's decision not to issue any P.C.O. in favor of the petitioner/company was arbitrary, discriminating, and against the basic principle of equality.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The petitioner's jute mill is not different, in substance, from any other jute mills producing jute sacks. 2. The petitioner/company is also entitled to P.C.Os. like any other conventional jute mill. 3. The Jute Commissioner has failed to exercise his discretion judiciously.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the Jute Commissioner to grant P.C.Os. in favor of the petitioner/company from the month of January, 2017 and onwards following the criteria applied to any other Jute Mills for the purpose of granting P.C.Os.
Tapash Mookherjee, J.
1. The jute used to be known as the “Golden Fibre” at one point of time. The jute industry was a robust industry having huge contributions to the economic growth of the Eastern part of the country, particularly in West Bengal. The major jute growing areas are located in West Bengal; consequently all major jute mills are also located in West Bengal. But the industry has lost its glory to many extents with the passage of time being confronted by several factors. Jute industry is basically a labour intensive industry and it has a huge potential for employment. It has a very good potential for earning foreign exchange by export also. The industry is under the control of Ministry of Textiles, Union of India.
2. Having realized the importance of the jute industry and the problems being faced by the industry, the Ministry of Textiles, Government of India with a long term vision launched a comprehensive plan for the overall development of the Jute Industry as a whole, starting from the research, development, production and quality improvement of the raw jute to modernization and technological up-gradation of the jute industry, under a scheme named as ‘Jute Technology Mission’. The said overall mission is classified under four Mini-Missions.
3. The present Writ Petition relates to the Mini-Mission-IV, the object of which is modernization and technological up-gradation of jute industry and also designing and developing jute diversified products.
4. The jute packaging materials (compulsory use in packaging commodities) Act, 1987 (in short, Packaging Act, 1987) has been enacted for the purpose of protection of the Jute Industry. Similarly Jute and Jute Textile Control Order, 2016 (in short, Control Order, 2016) has been passed for the implementation of the provisions in Packaging Act, 1987. It is also within the power of the Jute Commissioner to control the production of Jute Textiles, to control the price of the Jute Textile and to ensure the quality of the jute products.
5. The Mini-Mission – IV includes a plan for setting up ‘Jute Parks” within which setting up of new small Jute Mills/Spinning Mills/Weaving Units are to be encouraged.
6. Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Limited the Petitioner No.-1 in this case, is the owner of three conventional Jute Mills, all located in the District Hooghly, West Bengal.
7. One Shakatigarh Textile and Industries Limited set up a Jute Park called ‘Shakatigarh Jute Park’ at Shakatigarh in the District of Burdwan under the Mini-Mission- IV of the ‘Jute Technology Mission’. The Petitioner/Company set up a composite jute manufacturing unit as the anchor unit for manufacture of jute textile including traditional jute sacks, like B-Twill/A-Twill bags within the said Shakatigarh jute park. Three other units were also proposed to be set up within the said jute park for manufacture of diversified jute products with the raw-materials to be manufactured by the anchor unit. The Mill of the Petitioner/Company became commercially functional in the year 2013 but by that time the down-stream units within the Jute Park were not completely operational. The Petitioner’s Mill started manufacturing conventional jute bags. The private market for the consumption of such jute bags is very low. The Petitioner/Company, therefore, repeatedly approached the Jute Commissioner for granting P.C.O. (Production Control Order) under Rule 4 of the Jute Control Order, 2016 for the sustenance and survival of their industry within the said jute park. Their case was recommended by the Jute Management Board (J. M. B.) which is the nodal agency for the implementation of the Jute Technology Mission. But the prayer of the Petitioner/Company for P.C.O. was not considered by the Jute Commissioner for some reasons or other. Ultimately the Deputy Jute Commissioner by a letter dated 29th May, 2014 (Annexure P-15) expressed their reluctance to issue P.C.O. in favour of the Petitioner/Company on some grounds stated therein. Howeve
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
