A
B
NAGAMMAI COTTON MILLS ETC.
v.
ASSTI. DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE OF THE TEXTILES
COMMISSIONER, MINISTRY OF TEXTILES ETC.
MARCH 25, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATIANAIK, JJ.]
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 :
C
Textile (Control) Order, 1986/Textile (Developmeni and Regulation)
Order 1993-Notification dated 29.5.1993---Manufacturers of hank
yanr-Obligation 011 to produce the yam-Held, when the past liability was
sought to be wiped out for the period from April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1995,
the same pri11ciple per force would apply to the previous period from April 1,
D 1990 to Sept~mber 30, 1992.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6774 of
1996.
From the Judgment and order date_d 23.12.94 of the Madras High
E Court in W.P. No. 17988 of 1994.
·
F
. G
C.S. Vaidyanathan, K.V. Viswanathan, K. V. Venkataraman, Sri
Vijayanarayan for thii Appellants.
AK. Srivastava· and B.K. Prasad for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Delay condoned.
Leave granted .
We have heard learned counsel on both. sides.
When the matter had come up in the first instance before. another
Bench·in S.L.P. (C) No. 6611/95, pursuant to the concession made by the
learned Additional Solicitor General, by order dated September 25, 1995
H this Court passed the order as under :
882
/ •
'
NAGAMMAI COITON MILLS"· ASST. DIRECTOR, REG. OFFICE OF THE 1EXTILES COMMR 883
In view of the statemenf made by learned '.Additional Solicitor 'A
General that if the current obligation pursuant to the Notification
dated March 20, 1995.is carried ·out by the petitioner, the respon-
dents will not hold them liable for any past liability, the petitioner
does not intend to press the SLP which is accordingly disposed of
as withdrawn. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted · ,
that the petitioner has not raised any obje~ti~n t~ it; prospective 'B
liability under the said Notification dated March 20, 1995".
'•
Subsequently, the appellants claimed the same relief. In view of the
liability which sought to be avoided by the appellants, the Union of India
had filed a Review Petition before the Bench which came to be dismissed C
by order dated March 13, 1996. Since the same question is involved in.these
cases, the same order should equally follow. The learned counsel for the
• Union of lridia seeks to contend that the 'concession relates to the period
from April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1995. The liability ~ow sought to be wiped
out .relates in addition to the above it .·also relates to th_e period from April
1, 1990 to September ·30, 1992. He sought to make that distinction and D
contends that the matter involves f~rther inve~tigation.We do not fi'nd any
·force in the submission made _by .the 'le.arned counsel.. When the past
liability was sought t<i be wiped out for the period from April 1, 1993 to
:March 31, 1995, the same principle per force would apply to the previous
period fro~ April 1, 1990 to September 30, .1992:- ·
E
,,
Under. those circmµstances, all the appeals are allowed and the
orders are quashed as prayed:for. However, the oroer of.this Court does
not preclude the Government to take such appropriate steps as are open
c+
to them. under. law for
0
any future liability. No costs.
RP:
·Appeals are allowed.
o·
:,·.
·., ___ .,
~
"''.
F
Lex