Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Maharaja Shri Ummed Mills Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors ... on 2 July, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:28569]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3992/2003
Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Limited, Jodhpur Road, Pali - 306
401 (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Textiles,
Government of India, New Delhi.
2. Textile Commissioner, Government of India, Ministry of
Textiles, New CGO Building, 48, New Marine Lines,
Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020.
3. The Officer-in-Charge & Enforcement Officer, Regional Office
of Textile Commissioner, M-7, Sector-XI, Noida (U.P.).
4. District Industries Officer, District Industries Office, Mandia
Road, Pali-306 401.
5. District Supply Officer, Pali - 306 401.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4565/2002
Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Limited, Jodhpur Road, Pali - 306
401 (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Textiles,
Government of India, New Delhi.
2. Textile Commissioner, Government of India, Ministry of
Textiles, New CGO Building, 48, New Marine Lines,
Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020.
3. The Officer-in-Charge & Enforcement Officer, Regional Office
of Textile Commissioner, M-7, Sector-XI, Noida (U.P.).
4. District Industries Officer, District Industries Office, Mandia
Road, Pali-306 401.
5. District Supply Officer, Pali - 306 401.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 03/07/2025 at 09:37:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28569] (2 of 7) [CW-3992/2003]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sachin Saraswat.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Subhash Choudhary (UoI).
Mr. Aditya Gupta and
Mr. Lalit Pareek, Govt. Counsel (R/4)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
02/07/2025
SBCWP No. 3992/2003:
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the
Notification dated 17.04.2003 (Annex.4) issued by the Textile
Commissioner by invoking the power conferred upon him under
Clause 8 of Textiles (Development & Regulations) Order of 2001
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Textile Order of 2001').
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Textile
Commissioner by way of the said Notification has issued certain
direction regarding mode of packing of yarn in hank. It is
submitted that while describing such a manner of packing, there is
no mention regarding the period for which it is operational which
is the requirement of Clause 8(2) of the Textile Order, 2001.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
by way of the said Notification, the Textile Commissioner has
prescribed the manner of packing of yarn and its proportion and
while contemplating requirements, there is no mention regarding
period for which the said Notification would operate. According to
him, Clause 8 of the Textile Order of 2001 requires that apart from
the directions issued to the manufacturers with regard to manner
of packing, the Notification should also contain the period for
which the directions would be in operation which is mandatory in
[2025:RJ-JD:28569] (3 of 7) [CW-3992/2003]
nature. Learned counsel also submits that in absence of such
prescription of period, the Notification could not survive and it is
contrary to the provisions contained in Clause 8(2) of the Textile
Order of 2001. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the
decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Shri
Rangaswami, the Textile Commissioner & Ors. Vs. The
Sagar Textile Mills (P) Ltd. & Anr. reported in (1977) 2 SCC
578.
4. The stand of the respondents is that the powers have been
conferred upon the Textile Commissioner to prescribe the period of
operation with regard to manner of packing of yarn. According to
him, it is not mandatory to prescribe the period of operation as
required to be mentioned in the Notification and in absence of
such prescription, the Notification issued by the Textile
Commissioner cannot be said to be invalid. In support of their
contentions, they relied upon the decision of Madras High Court in
the case of The Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sree Rajendra
Mills Ltd. & Anr. (W.A. No. 2715/2002 and the batch of
petitions), Order dated 15.07.2010.
5. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the Clause 8 of the
Textile Order of 2001 which reads hereunder:-
"Clause 8 of Order of 2001:
"8. Production - (1) The Textile Commissioner may,
from time to time, issue directions, by notification with
the prior approval of the Central Government, to any
manufacturer or class of manufacturers or
manufacturers generally regarding;
[2025:RJ-JD:28569] (4 of 7) [CW-3992/2003]
(a) the class (es) or specification(s) of any
textiles which shall or shall not be
manufactured;
(b) the dyes and chemicals which shall or shall
not be used in the manufacture of any
textiles;
(c) the maximum and the minimum quantity of
textiles which shall be manufactured;
(d) the maximum ex-factory or wholesale or
retail price at which any textiles shall be
sold;
Provided that no directions shall be issued under
this sub-clause except in the interest of national
security or public order and safety or protection of
environment and public health, or public interest.
(2) The Textile Commissioner may, from time to time,
issue directions, by notification, with the prior approval
of the Central Government, to any manufacturer, class
of manufacturers or manufacturers generally of yarn
regarding the manner of packing of yarn in hanks,
cones or in any other form, in such proportions and for
such period of time as may be specified in the direction:
Provided that while issuing any direction under
this clause, the Textile Commissioner shall have regard
to:-
(i) the special requirements of any industry for
such yarn; and
(ii) the capacity of the manufacturer or class of
manufacturers or manufacturers generally to
manufacturer or pack yarn of different
descriptions or specifications."
6. From a plain reading of the provision quoted hereinabove, it
is clear that the Textile Commissioner can issue directions with the
prior approval of the Central Government to any manufacturer,
[2025:RJ-JD:28569] (5 of 7) [CW-3992/2003]
class of manufacturer or manufacturers generally of yarn
regarding the manner of packing of yarn in hanks, cones or in any
other form, in such proportions and for such period of time, as
may be specified in the direction. This means that apart from
prescribing the manner of packing, the period of operation of such
direction should be required to be indicated in the notification.
7. Similar issue was raised before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
the case of Shri Rangaswami, the Textile Commissioner &
Ors. Vs. The Sagar Textile Mills (P) Ltd. & Anr. (supra)
wherein it was held as hereunder:-
"2. As held by this Court in State of U.P. v. Jogendra
Singh, it is well settled that the word "may" is capable
of meaning "must" or "shall" in the light of the context
and that where a discretion is conferred upon a public
authority coupled with an obligation, the word "may"
which denotes discretion should be construed to mean
a command. Considering the purpose of the relevant
empowerment and its impact on those who are likely to
be affected by the exercise of the power, we are clear
that the power conferred on the Textile Commissioner
to issue directions is coupled with the duty to specify
the particular period for which the directions shall be
operative. Directions of the kind envisaged by Clause
20 are influenced and justified by exigencies which
render it imperative that the directions be reviewed
from time to time. That becomes feasible only if the
directions are limited expressly to a determinate period
of time at the end of which a fresh review of facts and
circumstances becomes obligatory. There is a fear that
a direction not limited in point of time may continue to
operate even after it has outlived its utility for the
reason merely that the need to review it is not clearly
[2025:RJ-JD:28569] (6 of 7) [CW-3992/2003]
perceived. Besides, the manufacturers must know, in
order that they may organize their business in their
own interest as well as in the interest of the
community at large, as to how long any particular
embargo is going to be operative."
8. A reading of the above quoted paragraph of the judgment
makes it is clear that the notification containing directions can be
issued with the prior approval with the Central Government but
there is requirement in law that the period of such a notification
should be indicated in the notification itself. It was held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that a direction not limited in point of time
may continue to operate even after it has outlived its utility for the
reason merely that the need to review it is not clearly perceived.
9. In view of the binding dictum of Hon'ble the Supreme Court,
the view contrary to it as taken by the Madras High Court in the
case of The Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sree Rajendra Mills
Ltd. & Anr. (supra) is no more a good law. Therefore, this Court
is of the view that the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves
to be allowed and the impugned notification deserves to be set
aside.
10. In the result, the present writ petition is allowed; and the
impugned Notification dated 17.04.2003 (Annex.4) is quashed and
set aside.
11. In such circumstances of the case, there shall no order as to
costs.
SBCWP No. 4565/2002:
[2025:RJ-JD:28569] (7 of 7) [CW-3992/2003]
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the
Notification dated 31.03.2000 (Annex.4), Circular dated
27.04.2000/25.05.2000 (Annex.2) and the Notification dated
14.09.2001 (Annex.3) issued by the respondents under the
provisions of Textiles (Development & Regulation) Order, 1993.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner informed
the Court that the said notifications have been superseded after
issuance of the new notifications by the respondents on the issue
in question and, therefore, the present writ petition has rendered
infructuous and the same may be dismissed as such.
3. The learned counsel representing the respondents do not
dispute the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
4. In view of the above submissions, the present writ petition
(No.4565/2002) is dismissed, having become infructuous.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
14-15-Mohan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
