PARVEJ AKTAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition and the transferred cases challenge the validity of Handlooms (Reservation of Articles for Production) Act, 1985 (22 of 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the order bearing No. DCP/bnp/1 (2 1986, dated 4/08/1986 issued under Ss. (1 of Section 3 of the Act. This Act is to provide for reservation of certain articles for exclusive production by handlooms and for matters connected therewith. On March 31, 1986, the Act came into force. Section 4 of the Act provides for constitution of an Advisory Committee to make recommendations to the central government to determine the nature of any article or class of articles that may be reserved for exclusive production by handlooms. On 2/06/1986, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 4 of the Act, the central government constituted an Advisory Committee. The said Advisory Committee submitted its recommendations. After considering those recommendations the impugned order dated 4/08/1986 was issued directing certain articles/class of articles to be exclusively reserved for production by handlooms. It is this order which is attacked on the following grounds in all these cases.

(2.) The Act and the impugned order are violative of Articles 14 and 19 (l) (g) of the Constitution.

(3.) According to Mr M. N. Krishnamani, learned counsel for the petitioners total reservation of certain items of textiles in favour of handloom would have the effect of creating a monopoly. This court in State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal Vyas has categorically laid down that no monopoly can be created in favour of an individual. Similar views have been expressed by the High courts as seen from Municipal Committee v. Haji Ismail and Maniram Badha Chamar v. Pannalal Motiram Chamar