GANGES MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main writ petition is taken up for hearing together with the connected application. In the writ petition the grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioners being the manufacturer of jute goods and/or jute textile goods of Indian origin are seriously affected and/or prejudiced as the respondents are not taking lawful action for violation of Clause 3 of Jute (Licensing & Control) Order, 1961. It is the case of the petitioners that by virtue of exemption granted in terms of the Notification published on 4th February, 2000 the petitioners are not required to obtain any licence for carrying on business for production and/or manufacturing of raw jute and/or jute textile goods of Indian origin. But the other traders in violation of the provision of Clause 3 of the aforesaid Control Order read with notification dated 1st February, 2000 are importing the jute goods and/or jute textile from neighbouring foreign countries. The respondent authorities, however, even though having known about above, are not taking any action as provided in the Essential Commodities Act. As such the very object for which the petitioners have been exempted, is being frustrated. The whole idea to exempt the petitioners from the aforesaid Control Order being made applicable is to protect the indigenous jute industries and to rationalize manufacture, sale and storage of raw and jute textile.

(2.) Mr. Hirak Mitra, learned Senior Counsel, appearing in support of this application submits that it is the statutory duty of the respondent to take action to enforce the aforesaid prohibition as provided under the said Control Order as well as notification dated 1st February, 2000. The provision of the said Control Order has got overriding effect over all other laws. So the said respondent shall take steps in accordance with law and not to allow further breach to be committed by any of the traders who fall within the mischief of the aforesaid Control Order and notification.

(3.) In support of his submission he relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1954 SC 465 and 1995 (75) E.L.T. 32 (S.C.) = 1995 (1) SCC 345. He also draws my attention to the provision of the Essential Commodities Act for taking action against the erring traders.