Delhi High Court
The Bhagat Cooperative ... vs Ministry Of Textiles Through ... on 11 November, 2016
$~37
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 11.11.2016
+ W.P.(C) 10562/2016 & CM No.41451/2016 (interim directions)
THE BHAGAT COOPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY LTD
AND ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES THROUGH DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSIONER FOR HANDLOOMS AND ORS Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mr. R.K. Bharani, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Neeraj Malhotra with Mr. Rupal Luthra, Advocates for
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Mimansak
Bhardwaj, Advocates for UOI.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
11.11.2016
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking setting
aside of the selection list dated 20.10.2016 of the participants in the
forthcoming exhibition commencing from 16.11.2016 to 30.11.2016,
issued by the Association of Corporations & Apex Societies of
Handloom (ACASH).
2. It is contended that the petitioner had responded to an
W.P.(C) No.10562/2016 Page 1 of
advertisement issued by Respondent No. 2 dated 25.03.2016 inviting
applications for participation in the exhibition to be held at Delhi
Haat, INA Market, New Delhi. It is contended that the Office of the
Development Commissioner for Handlooms, Government of India,
Ministry of Textiles, by letter dated 26.09.2016, forwarded the
applications of several societies of handloom weavers. However,
despite the said recommendations, none of the societies, which were
recommended by the Development Commissioner for Handlooms
have been selected and the societies which have been selected were
not ones which were recommended by the Development
Commissioner for Handlooms.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 has
produced the original record with regard to the selection by the
respondent No.2. The original record after perusal has been returned
to the respondents.
4. It is contended that in terms of the advertisement dated
25.03.2016, applications were invited from all Commissioners,
Directors- In-charge of Handlooms, Textiles in the State/Union
Territories and all State Handloom Corporations and Apex Societies.
It is contended that the notice, specifically, in the terms and
conditions, inter alia stated as under:-
"2. All handloom corporations/apex societies/Primary
coop. Societies/NGO/National Awardees/Clusters
W.P.(C) No.10562/2016 Page 2 of
shall be eligible for participation in the exhibition
having Handloom Mark Registration and are using
Handloom Mark Level. However, the participation
of primary cooperative societies / NGO/ Cluster
will be subject to recommendation of the
Director/Commissioner In charge of Handloom &
Textiles of the concerned State/Union Territory.
Preference will be given to those handloom
agencies which are registered under the India
Handloom Brand.
5. It is contended that the respondent No.2 has only considered the
societies that were recommended by the Directors/Commissioners
Incharge of Handloom and Textiles of the concerned State/Union
Territories. It is contended that in the case of the selected Societies,
there were specific recommendations by the Office of the
Commissioner of Industries, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and only those
societies, which were recommended by the Government of NCT of
Delhi, were considered and found eligible. The Societies that were
not recommended by the concerned Commissioners of the Handloom
and Textiles of the concerned State/Union Territories were not
considered.
6. Further, it is contended that the letter relied upon by the
petitioner is merely a letter forwarding the application received by the
Development Commissioner for Handlooms, the Ministry of Textiles,
Government of India and is not a recommendation in any form.
7. It is contended that what was necessary was a recommendation
W.P.(C) No.10562/2016 Page 3 of
by the concerned State/Union Territories and not a mere forwarding
by the Development Commissioner, Government of India.
8. It is contended that there is no recommendation in favour of the
applications which was forwarded and, since the applications were not
received in accordance with the advertisement dated 25.03.2016, the
same could not be considered.
9. Perusal of notice dated 25.03.2016 shows that the said notice
clearly indicates that participation is only on the recommendation of
the Commissioners/Director-In-charge of Handloom/Textiles in the
concerned State/Union Territories. The letter also indicates that the
said Commissioners/Directors are to recommend names of only five
suitable handloom primary cooperative societies of their State/Union
Territories. Perusal of the letter relied upon by the petitioner,
contending to be a recommendation dated 26.09.2016, shows that it
does not recommend five societies but, in fact, is a list of 28
federation/societies. The letter does not, in my view, amount to a
recommendation for being considered.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if
the recommendation was not to be accepted by the Government of
India, Ministry of Textiles, the same should not have been forwarded
to the respondent No.2 and should have been rejected, in my view, is
not tenable. Since the advertisement dated 25.03.2016 is very explicit
in terms of the authority, which is to recommend. In case the
W.P.(C) No.10562/2016 Page 4 of
petitioner approaches an incorrect authority and that authority merely
forwards the name of the petitioner to the respondent No.2, the same
would not amount to a recommendation. There would also not be a
necessity to accept or reject any application by the Development
Commissioner for Handloom, Ministry of Textiles, Government of
India since the said authority is neither an accepting nor a
recommending authority.
11. In my view, there is no fault with the action of the respondents
in not selecting the petitioner and preparing the impugned select list.
12. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
NOVEMBER 11, 2016/st
W.P.(C) No.10562/2016 Page 5 of
