PARVEJ AKTAR AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 1 S.C.R. 803 · Decided: 05-02-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

PARVEJ AK.TAR AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 5, 1993 
[LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, CT., S. MOHAN AND 
N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Handlooms (Reservation of Articles for Production) Act, 1985: 
A 
B 
Sections 3 and 4-0rder reserving certain articles for exclusive produc.: C 
tion by handlooms-Constitutiona/ validity of-Whether in conflict with 
clause 20 of Cotton Textile (Control) Order, 1948. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 39(b) & (c), 43-0rder u/s. 3(1) of the Hand-
D 
looms (Reservation of Articles for Production) Act, 1985-Reserving of cer-
tain aTticles for exclusive production by handlooms-Whether amounts to 
protective discrimination-Whether creates unreasonable restriction 011 power-
loom industry-Wh~ther in the nature of creating monopoly-Direcfive Prin-
ciples of State Policy-<Jiving effect to. 
E 
In the present Writ Petition and the transferred cases, the constitu· 
tional validity of Handlooms (Reservation of Articles for production) Act, 
1985 and the order dated 4th August, 1986 issued under S.3(1) of the Act, 
directing that certain articles/class of articles to be exclusively reserved 
for production by handlooms, has been challenged on the ground of F 
violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution oflndia. 
On behalf-of the petitione.rs, it was contended that total reservation 
of certain items of ta1lles in favour of handlooms would have the effect of 
creating a monopoly; the total prohibition of manufacture of certain 
clothes by the powerloom sector violated Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitu· G 
tion; that the periodic review provided under Section 3(5) or the Act bas 
not taken place at all; that the restrictions did not serve any public 
interest; and that the Act and the Cotton Textile (Control) Order, 1948 
could not operate in the same field and so the orders dated 4.8.86 issued 
under the Act were ultra vires. 
803 
H 
804 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993} 1 S.C.R. 
A 
On behalf of the Respondents it was contended that the Act was 
entirely different from the Cotton Textiles (Control) Order 1948 issued 
under the Essential Commodities Act, and as such there was absolutely nd 
. 
. 
repugnance. It was also contended that an Expert Committee was con· 
stituted to go into bandloom, powerloom and textile mUI industries, and 
B 
based on this Committee's report, textile policy stakments were issued 
and the Act therefore was a product of overall assessment to protect 
handloom industry which was sinking in spite of the various co11cessions. 
Dismissing the matters, this Court, 
C 
HELD : 1. It is incorrect to state that the powerloom sector has 
come to be affected. Originally, the holders of four powerlooms were 
exempt. But these powerloom owners diverted their products to larger 
powerloom owners. Once those te'xtiles enter the market there was no 
possibility of finding out whether they bad been manufactured by the 
owners of four powerlooms. Therefore, it became necessary to impose this 
D prohibition. When the Act advances a directive principle contained under 
Article 39(b) and (c), it cannot be called unreasonable. (8110-EJ 
2. The Cotton Textile Control Order 1948 issued under the Essential 
Commodities Act deals with the production while the Handlooms (Reser· 
E vation of Articles for Production) Act, 1985 is an Act which dl'.als entirely 
with handloom. The order issued under Section 3 of the Act is only for 
protection and development of haodloom industry. There is no question 
of botlt the Cotton Textile Control Order and the Order under challenge 
operating in the same field. In view of the non-obstante clause in S.3(1) of 
the Act, the subject of handlooms textiles was taken out of the purview of 
F 
Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and a separate Act 
has been passed. Merely because clause 20 or the Cotton Textile Control 
Order confers an enabling power that does not mean that an order issued 
under the Essential Commodities Act will prevail. The objects or the Act 
and the Essential Commodities Act under which the Cotton Textile (Con· 
G trol) order is issued are different. Therefore, the order D!lder Section 3(1) 
or the Act does not run counter to clause 20 of Cotton Textile Control 
Order. [816H, 822F, 8240] 
Ch. Tika Ramji v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1956} SCR 393 and 
Harishankar Bag/a v. 171e State of Madhya Pradesh, (1955) SCR 380 at 391, 
H relied on. 
PARvEJ AKTAR v. U.0.1. 
805 
3. There is no question of monopoly 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.