Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1984 Supreme(Mad) 373

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. N. CHANDURKAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHIADEV
Sri. Rani Lakshmi Ginning, Spinning and Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd., and Others - Appellant
Versus
Textile Commissioner, Bombay and Others - Respondent
Case No : Writ Petns. Nos.5396 and 5397 of 1979 Etc
Decided On : 05 September 1984

Advocates Appeared:V.P. Raman, K.V. Sridharan, P.Chidambaram, M.N. Krishnamani, G.M. Krishnakumar, G.Ramaswami, K.V. Sridharan., P. Jayaraman, P.Jothimani., T.Vadivel., S.Rajaram, V. Rangarajan, C.Ramanathan, K.Govindarajan, P. Seshadri, C.Nagarajan, K. Swami, O.R. Abdul Kalam, Advocates.

A provision which leaves an unbridled power to an authority cannot in any sense be characterised as reasonable, a proposition with which no one can now quarrel.

Headnote:
Cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948 - Clause 21(5) - Constitutional validity - Violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India - Impugned notification dated 29th June 1979 - Violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India - Restriction imposed by the notification - Not reasonable.
Fact of the Case:

The constitutional validity of Cl.21(5) of Cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948, and a notification issued by the Textile Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Cl.20 and sub-clause (5) of Cl.21 of the said Order issued on 29th of June, 1979, has been challenged.
Finding of the Court:

Clause 21(5) of the Cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948. is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. We farther hold that the impugned notification dated 29th June 1979 also suffers from violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and that the restriction imposed by that notification cannot be said to be reasonable as contended on behalf of the Central Government.
Issues: 1. Whether Cl.21(5) of Cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948, is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the impugned notification dated 29th June 1979 suffers from violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Clause 21(5) of the Cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948, is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India because: a) It suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and uncontrolled power vested in the Textile Commissioner. b) It does not provide any guidelines for the Textile Commissioner to exercise his power under the clause. c) It does not provide for any exemption from the operation of the direction made under the clause. 2. The impugned notification dated 29th June 1979 also suffers from violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India because: a) It is based on clause 21(5) of the Cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948, which is itself violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. b) It does not take into account the capacity of the manufacturer or the requirement of installation of additional machinery and the expenditure to be incurred by the mills where they have never been packing yarn in hanks. c) It does not refer to any provision for disposal of any production made by the manufacturers in accordance with the notification.
Final Decision: All the writ petitions were allowed.

Judgment :-

M. N. CHANDURKAR (C J)

In this batch of writ petitions, the constitutional validity of Cl.21(5) of Cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948, and a notification issued by the Textile Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Cl.20 and sub-clause (5) of Cl.21 of the said Order issued on 29th of June, 1979, has been challenged.

2. We shall deal with the facts of the case in W.Ps. 5396 and 5397 of 1979, and W.P. 1958 of 1980 and W.Ps. Nos. 3041 and 3042 of 1980. The petitioner in W.P. 5396 of 1979 is a company known as Sri Rani Lakshmi Ginning, Spinning and Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd., which has been manufacturing yarn since the inception of the mill in 1961 only in cones and the yarn packed in cones is used for manufacture of cloth by power looms. The petitioner herein at no point of time had any reeling machine which is required for packing the yarn in hank form.

3. The petitioner in W.P. 1958 of 1980 is M/s. Nagammai Cotton Mills which is a partnership concern. In these mills also right from the time the mills went into production in 1960, the entire production is only in cones and the yarn packed in cones is used for manufacture of cloth by power looms. The mills do not have reeling machines required for packing the yarn in the hank form and the mills are catering to the needs of the power loom industry and the hosiery units.

4. W.P. 3041 of 1980 and 3042 of 1980 are filed try a private limited company known as M/s. Veeraraghava Textiles (P) Ltd., who are also manufacturing fine counts of yarn having about 17500 spindles and the said textiles have been recently started in the year 1977 with new machinery. The production has always been of fine counts of yarn in the form of cones and they have never marketed yarn in the form of hanks.

5. Some of the textile mills have only a spinning activity and they are known as spinning mills; some of them are weaving mills and some are composite mills which are carrying on the activity of both spinning and weaving. The cotton yarns are of different varieties and their accepted classification is that the varieties of counts 1 to 40 are called coarse, counts 40 to 60 are called medium yarns, between 60 and 100 counts are called fine yarn and anything above 100 counts is described as very fine yarn. There are two methods of packing this yarn; one is the cone form which is made available to power looms and hosiery industry, and the other is packing in the hank form which is exclusively made available for the handloom industry.

6. There does not seem to be much dispute that packing of yarn into the cone form or the hank form involves different processes. After the raw cotton goes through different processes such as the flow room, carding, drawing, simplex and reaches spinning frames, if the yarn is to be packed in the cone form, then the ring frame cops are fed into winding machines while if it is to be packed in the hank form, the ring frame cops are fed to reeling machines.

7. At this stage, it is necessary to briefly outline the history of the relevant provisions relating to the issue of the Cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Control Order. The Control Order was issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry of the Government of India on 2nd of August 1948 in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. The Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, was itself enacted prior to independence on 19-11-46. When the Constitution of India was brought into force with effect from 26th January 1950 in Part 21, some temporary transitional and special provisions were made. Art.369 of the Constitution is one such provision. We are concerned with Art.369(a) of the Constitution which reads as follows :-

"Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament shall, during a period of five years from the commencement of this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the following matters as if they w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document