JAGMOHAN LAL VARMA Vs. TEXTILE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of a bunch of 39 writ petitions (C. W. P. Nos. 3605 and 3606 of 1972, 2039, 2231, 2498, 2499. 2555, 2556, 2724, 2877, 3131, 3436, 3440, 3791 and 3835 of 1973, 362, 743, 1784, 1897, 2019, 3880 and 4380 of 1974, 763,1609, 1957, 5381, 6320, 6321, 6631, 6633, 7269, 7270, 7312 and 7537 of 1975, 304, 5539, 7395, 7595 and 8387 of 1976) which involve similar points of law.

(2.) THE facts of C. W. No. 2498 of 1973 may be stated for highlighting the points in issue in all the writ petitions.

(3.) THE Woollen Textile (Production and Distribution) Control Order, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Order), prohibits the acquisition or installation "or sale or disposal otherwise and change of location of any spindle worked by power and its use for manufacturing worsted yarn without the prior permission in writing of the Textile Commissioner. It is so provided in clause 3 of the Order. The petitioner did not take the requisite permission of the Textile Commissioner for installation and use of the spindles for manufacturing worsted yarn which is included in the definition of "woollen yarn", as given in clause 2 (f) of the order. Many other parties had similarly installed unauthorised spindles and worked them. The licence under Rule 174 of the Rules continued to be issued in respect of unauthorised spindles because nothing was contained in it debarring the proprietors thereof from seeking it. The second proviso to Rule 174 of the Rules was amended in 1971 providing that no licence for the manufacture of woollen yarn (including worsted yarn) shall be granted unless the party held the written permission of the Textile Commissioner for installation and working of the spindles. The Textile Commissioner issued a Press Note on 'february 17, 1971 (copy annexure 'b'), inviting the parties who had installed unauthorised worsted yarn spindles to apply for regularisation before March 15, 1971, and offering to regularise them subject to some conditions mentioned therein. The petitioner applied for regularisation of his unauthorised spindles within the stipulated period. A departmental study team inspected the Establishment of the petitioner in the middle of July, 1971. The petitioner was informed vide communication dated March 13, 1973, that the benefit of regularisation offered under the Press Note could not be extended to him as the spindles installed were cotton converted whereas the Press Note provided for the regularisation of unauthorised worsted spindles. In other words, according to the authorities, the unauthorised converted worsted yarn did not qualify as unauthorised worsted spindles for regularisation in terms of the Press Note. The petitioner has challenged the decision of the Textile Commissioner declining to regularise his spindles on the ground that the Press Note made no distinction between the worsted yarn spindles and the converted cotton spindles capable of manufacturing worsted yarn. He has also challenged the vires of clause 3 of the Order wherein prior written permission of the Textile Commissioner for installation and working of worsted yarn spindles is necessary and of second proviso to Rule 174 of the Rules which debars the owners of unauthorised spindles from seeking a license thereunder. The petitioner has consequently prayed for an appropriate writ setting aside the order of the Textile Commissioner dated 13th March, 1973 (copy annexure 'd') declining to regularise his unauthorised spindles and further to direct him to regularise them in accordance with the Press Note (copy annexure 'b')- He has further prayed that the Excise authorities be restrained from revoking his L. 4 licence issued to him under Rule 174 of the Rules on the ground of non-regularisation of his unauthorised spindles.