DAWN MILLS CO LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the legality of the order dated October 5, 1979, annexed as Exh. F to the petition, and passed by the Senior Enforcement Officer of the Department of Industrial Development, Office of the Textile Commissioner, and the Order dated December 12, 1979, annexed as Exh. I to the Petition, passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India in its Appellate Jurisdiction.

(2.) Only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate the grievance of the Petitioners. The Government of India published a Notification dated June 29, 1979 in exercise of powers conferred by Clause 20 and sub-clause (5) of Clause 21 of the Cotton Textiles (Central) Order, 1948. The Notification provided that every producer of yarn shall pack yarn, for civil consumption, in hank form, in each quarter commencing from July/September 1979 quarter and in every subsequent quarter is proportion not less than 50% of the total yarn packed by him during each quarter for civil consumption. The Government of India also issued another Notification dated July 12, 1979 in almost identical terms in respect of Art Silk Yarn. The earlier notification was in respect of cotton yarn. Both these notifications provided that if the producer of yarn is not able to comply with the provisions of the notification for valid reasons he shall apply to the Textile Commissioner giving full justification for his inability to comply with the notification and obtain specific orders in that behalf. In other words, the Notifications conferred powers upon the Textile Commissioner to exempt certain producers from the operation of the notifications for valid reasons.

(3.) The petitioners applied for exemption on July 22, 1979 and the copy of the application addressed to the Textile Commissioner, Bombay, is annexed as Exh. E to the petition. The petitioners set out various reasons for their inability to comply with the requirements of the notifications. The petitioners pointed out that they would be required to spend a large amount for importing the machinery and that they are not in position to secure additional accommodation to keep the same. The petitioners also pointed out various other reasons which need not be set out in detail. In answer to this application, the Senior Enforcement Officer, informed the petitioners by letter dated October 5, 1979 that their request cannot be granted. That order was confirmed by the Government of India by letter dated December 12, 1979. These two orders are under challenge.