SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Mad) 2825

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN
The Union of India, represented by its Secretary Ministry of Textiles & Another
Versus
Sree Rajendra Mills Ltd & Another
W.A. No. 2715 of 2002, W.P. Nos. 16749, 33944, 44044 of 2002, 716, 893, 2110, 2989, 3344 of 2003 & W.A.M. P. No. 4603 of 2002
Decided On :Decided On : 15-07-2010

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants:S. Udayakumar, ACGSC, S.R. Raghunathan, R. Parthiban, Advocates.
For the Respondents:A.R.M. Arunachalam, Advocate, M. Dhandapani, Spl. G.P.

The temporary sickness of a mill does not justify exemption from hank yarn obligation, emphasizing the public interest and the obligation to provide hank yarn to the handloom industry.

Headnote:

Hank Yarn Obligation - Protection of Handloom Industry - Textiles (Development and Regulation) Order 2001, Clause 6, 7, 8, 10 - The judgment discusses the hank yarn packing notification and its obligation, the exemption for sick mills, discrimination between relief undertakings and sick units, and the legal provisions under the Textiles (Development and Regulation) Order 2001. The court emphasizes the public interest and the obligation to provide hank yarn to the handloom industry.

Fact of the Case:

The Writ Petitioners, mills, sought to quash the hank yarn packing notification and claimed exemption as sick units declared by BIFR. The court analyzed the protection of the handloom industry, discrimination between relief undertakings and sick units, and the legal provisions under the Textiles (Development and Regulation) Order 2001.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Writ Petitioners were not entitled to exemption from hank yarn obligation as being declared sick did not justify exemption. The court emphasized the public interest and the obligation to provide hank yarn to the handloom industry.

Issues: 1. Whether the Writ Petitioners are entitled to exemption as sick units. 2. Whether there is discrimination between relief undertakings and sick units. 3. Whether the Writ Petitioners can evade their statutory obligation.

Ratio Decidendi: The temporary sickness of a mill should not be considered for a decision weighing against the government policy protection given to the poor handloom weavers for the supply of hank yarn. The Writ Petitioners cannot claim exemption from the hank yarn obligation.

Final Decision: All the Writ Petitions were dismissed with costs, and the Writ Appeal was disposed of. The court emphasized the public interest and the obligation to provide hank yarn to the handloom industry.

Judgment :-

R.BANUMATHI, J.

1. The Writ Appeal arises out of the order of learned single Judge dated 29.7.2002 made in W.P.No.30174 of 2002 directing the 2nd Respondent to consider the 1st Respondents application dated 27.5.2002 by suspending the operation of the impugned notice dated 11.7.2002 issued by the 1st Appellant and that 1st Appellant can pass appropriate orders depending upon the outcome of the orders to be passed by the 2nd Respondent.

2. In the Writ Petitions, Petitioners/Mills seek writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the notification of the 1st Respondent in Order/Notification No.16/TDRO/8/1/2000/76 dated 31.3.2000 and quash clause 10 thereof and consequently forbear the Respondents from taking any action against the Writ Petitioners for non-compliance with the said notification insofar as the hank yarn obligations. Since the points for determination involved in the Writ Appeal and Writ Petitions are one the same, with the consent of the counsels on record, the Writ Petitions were heard together with the Writ Appeal. For convenience, the parties are referred as per their rank in the Writ Petitions.

3. In exercise of powers conferred on Textile Commissioner, for the protection of handloom industry and ensuring that the yarn in Hank form is available in adequate quantities at reasonable price to the handloom industry, the 1st Respondent issued hank yarn packing notification No.16/TDRO/8/1/2000/76 dated 31.3.2000 stipulating that every producer of yarn, who packs yarn for civil consumption, shall pack yarn in hank form in each quarterly period and fulfil his obligation. Clause (6) deals with the extent of hank yarn obligation and fulfilment thereof, which reads as under:

"6. Extent of obligation and fulfilment thereof:

(1) Every producer of yarn who packs yarn for civil consumption shall pack yarn in hank form in each quarterly period commencing from April – June, 2000 and in every subsequent quarterly period, in proportion of not less than fifty percent (50%) of total yarn packed by him during each quarterly period for civil consumption;

Provided that in regard to yarn containing cotton including cotton waste to the extent of 90% or more by weight, not less than eighty percent of the yarn required to be packed in hank form shall be of counts 40s and below.

(2) A producer of yarn who is unable to pack yarn in hank form for any reason or who does not have reeling capacity to pack yarn in hank form, up to the extent of stipulation made/proportion prescribed under sub clause (1) shall fulfil his obligation prescribed under this clause in either of the following manners:-

(a) A producer of yarn, with the written permission of the concerned Central Excise Department and the Regional Office of the Textile Commissioner, shall get his yarn reeled into hank form, by another producer having surplus reeling facility or through independent reeling unit(s) which is (are) in the records of the respective Regional Office of the Textile Commissioner. A producer of yarn who avails of this facility shall produce a certificate in the Form-A appended to this notification, duly certified by a Chartered/Cost Accountant, to the concerned Regional Office of the Textile Commissioner along with the quarterly hank yarn packing return, i.e., Annexure-I, appended to the HYN 2000, for every concerned quarterly period.

Or

(b) The shortfall in respect of one producer of yarn (called as the transferor) for a particular quarter shall be met by another producer (called as the transferee) after fulfilling his (transferees) own hank yarn packing obligation to the satisfaction of the concerned Regional Office of the Textile Commissioner, and in this regard, the information shall be furnished by the transferor in Annexure-II appended to HYN 2000, so as to reach the jurisdictional Regional Office of the Textile Commissioner and the Consumer Service Section of the office of the Textile Commissioner, M/o Textiles, Govt. Of India, New C.G.O. Building, 48, New M





















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top