L SHANKARAIAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioners in these writ petitions (73 petitioners in writ petition No. 14791 of 2004 and 244 petitioners in writ petition No. I 5938 of 2004) initially filed these writ petitions ' praying this court the following relief. For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleaded to issue a writ, Order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the reservation order in S.O.557(c), dated 26.7.1996 issued under sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the handlooms (reservation of articles for production) act, 1985, as illegal, and unenforceable and issue a consequential direction to the first respondent to reconstitute the committee under Section 4 of the act with adequate representation from powerloom industry and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) this court admitted the writ petition No.14791 of 2004 on 20.8.2004 and passed interim orders directing stay of all further proceedings in respect of the petitioneRs. Respondents 3 to 6 filed an application being w.v.m.p.No.2610 of 2004 to vacate the interim order on 3.9.2004. Two organisations and two individuals filed an application being W.P.m.p.No.21433 of 2004 seeking impleadement on 9.9.2004. That application was ordered and they were impleaded as respondents 7 to 10. Similarly, writ petition No. 15938 of 2004 was admitted on 7.9.2004 and passed orders directing stay of all further proceedings including search and seizure operations at petitioners' premises. Respondents 3 to 6 filed an application being w.v.m.p. No.2887 of 2004 to vacate the interim order on 22.9.2004. In this writ petition also the two organisations and two individuals filed an application being W.P.m.p. No.21566 of 2004 seeking impleadment on 14.9.2004. Said application was ordered and they were impieaded as respondents 7 to 10.

(3.) the impleaded respondents filed counter-affidavit inter alia stating that the issue raised is no more res integra and that the same is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Parvej Aktar v. Union of India, (1993) 2 SCC 221, (hereafter called, Parvej Aktar Case). Presumably for this reason the petitioners moved application being W.P.M.P. No.23126 of 2004 and W.P.M.P. No.23127 of 2004 in both the cases under order vi, rule 17 of code of civil procedure, 1908 praying this court to permit them to amend the writ prayer on the ground that by inadvertence the relief in this writ petition was not properly framed. As these applications are not opposed this court allowed the amendment by order dated 1.10.2004, and 30.9.2004 respectively. After amendment, the relief sought by the petitioners in both the writ petitions reads as under: for the reasons stated in the affidavit it prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring (l) that the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in abridging all 22 items reserving for production by handloom vide order S.O.459 (1) dated 4.8.1986 into 11 items by order S.O.557 (e), dated 26.7.1996 as illegal, and contrary to sections 3 and 4 of handlooms act, 1985 and proviso to rule 3 of handlooms (reservation of articles of production) rules, 1986; (2) further declare that the search and seizure of respondents 3 to 6 at the instance of handloom weavers in the premises of the petitioners powerloom units and foisting false cases on the assumption that the petitioners are violating the order of reservation as illegal, impermissible (3) and also declare that the action of the advisory committee constituted on 8.2.2001 by the ministry of textiles, in not meeting once in a year to review the list of reserved articles as illegal and contrary to law; (4) and further direct the respondents 1 and 2 to reconstitute the advisory committee by exercising its power under Section 4 of the handlooms act, 1985 read with rule 3 of the handloom rules 1986 with adequate members representing powerloom sector as there are only 1 or 2 members out of 29 members of advisory committee constituted on 8.2.2001 and pass such other suitable orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and just in the circumstances of the case. Case of petitioners