RAMKUMAR MILLS LIMITED BANGALORE Vs. TEXTILE COMMISSIONER BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no substance in these appeals. The appellants are spinning mills and some of them are composite mills and all of them are situated in Bangalore District, except appellant No. 2 in W.As. 853 to 859 of 1994, which is situated in the District of Dharwad.

(2.) The first respondent The Textile Commissioner, actingunder the Cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948 (for short, '1948 Order') had issued a notification calling upon all the producers of 'yarn' to comply with the provisions of the notification dated 30th March, 1985 in No. CER/17/85/1 as amended from time to time, to pack 'yarn' for civil consumption in the form of 'hank' in each half yearly period in proportion of not less than 50% of the total 'yarn' packed by a producer.

(3.) The appellants contended, by filing the writ petitions, thatthe said notification was ultra vires on various grounds. These writ petitions were filed in the year 1986. Now, during the pendency of these writ petitions, the Supreme Court decided the validity of this very notification by its Judgment in G.T.N. Textiles Ltd. v Assistant Directors, Regional Office of the Textile Commissioner and Others . The Supreme Court took the view that the impugned notification directing the manufacturers to pack the 'yarn in hank form, issued under Clause 21(5) of the 1948 Order, was not violative of Articles 14 and 19(l)(g) of the Constitution, and upheld the Constitutional validity of Clause 16(1) of the Textiles (Control) Order, 1986 (for short, 1986 Order') and the notification issued thereunder, as amended from time to time. The decision was rendered by the Supreme Court, in connection with appeals on Special Leave granted against the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing such writ petitions. In paragraph 12 of the Judgment, Kuldip Singh, J., speaking for the Supreme Court, held that the impugned notification has been made applicable uniformly to all the producers of yarn and that the appellants therein were required to pack yarn in hank form in the proportion as provided in the notification keeping in view the total yarn packed by the mill concerned. In view of this decision, therefore, it becomes obvious that all manufacturers of yarn are bound to comply with the notification. The appellants submitted before the learned single Judge that the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in G.T.N. Textiles Ltd.'s case (supra), was rendered in the light of Articles 14 and 19(l)(g) of the Constitution, but the appellants wanted to raise a new ground viz., that the Textiles (Control) Order itself was ultra vires and was beyond the competence of the Parliament; and therefore, the notification would fall through on that ground alone and would not bind the manufacturers of yarn. The learned single Judge, before whom these submissions were made, rightly took the view that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of G.T.N. Textiles Ltd. (supra), this argument may not survive for consideration. However, a Division Bench decision of this Court in Ferro Concrete Company of India (Steels) Ltd. v State of Karnataka , was pressed into service, under which the Division Bench had taken the view that there was a difference between a point and an argument and if a new point is raised, which is not considered by the Supreme Court, such challenge would be permissible by way of a separate writ petition. The learned single Judge went into the merits of the matter and repelled this objection even on merits by taking the view that the impugned order was within the legislative competence of the Parliament and the result was that the writ petitions were dismissed. The appellants are before us against the said decision.