LEO CANDLES Vs. INDUSTRIES COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES WING GUINDY MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents to grant a quota of 35 bags (50 kgs. each) of Standard Grade Paraffin (Type II), per month along with the arrears of wax from January, 1990.

(2.) THE petitioner is a small scale industrial unit engaged in the manufacture of candles paraffin wax. It seems that industry was started in 1983. THE quota for the industry was 35 bags of paraffin wax per month. In 1989 November, an inspection have been made by the Joint Director of Chemicals and based on that, a show-cause was issued to the petitioner on 29.12.1989 directing him to show cause why the quota bags of wax should not be cancelled. It was received by the petitioner on 8.1.1990. petitioner submitted his reply stating that he was using the entire wax allotted purpose of manufacturing candles and had sold them to various persons as found records maintained by the petitioner. However, to the surprise of the petitioner, supply wax was stopped from January, 1990. THE petitioner started making representations. August, 1990, the 1st respondent addressed a communication to the petitioner him that an ad hoc allotment of 5 bags of wax per month for three months upto July, had been considered, and the petitioner was granted 5 bags of wax per month for May, and July, 1990. THE 1st respondent issued proceedings on 22.10.1990 stating that decided to fix the quota for the petitioner as 10 bags of paraffin wax per month. It is by the petitioner that no reason has been given for reducing the quota from 35 bags bags per month. It is also alleged that there is no valid justification for the quota the respondent from 1990 and the action of the respondents is arbitrary, besides violative of the principles of natural justice. It is also alleged in the affidavit of the that the copy of the report of the 2nd respondent has not been given and even the order passed on the show-cause notice has not been given to the petitioner. THE petitioner alleges that rejection of the quota for the petitioner cannot be sustained and as such, he is entitled the original quota of 35 bags per month.

(3.) THE learned Additional Government Pleader appears for the respondents. On instructions he states that paraffin wax is a scarce raw material governed by Paraffin Wax (Supply, Distribution and Price Fixation) Order, 1972 and it comes under the Essential Commodities Act. According to the order, the Director of Industries and Commerce can suspend or or refuse the allotment to paraffin wax allottees, who breach the rules and regulations. Learned Additional Government Pleader states that a show cause notice was issued as by the petitioner and as the explanation of the unit was not convincing, the quota reduced. THE learned Additional Government Pleader further states that on representation of the unit, an ad hoc quota was given to the petitioner and with effect October, 1990, it was enhanced to 10 bags per month.