SIRSILK LTD. AND ANOTHER versus TEXTILES COMMITTEE & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 880 · Decided: 12-09-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
SIRSILK LTD. AND ANOTHER 
v. 
TEXTILES COMMITTEE & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 
[A.P. SEN AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] 
Textile Committee Act, 1963/Textile Committee Rules 1965: Sec-
tions 2(g), 12(1) and 22/Rule 21'--Fe~lmposition of-On production of 
rayon yarn and staple fibre yarn-Constitutional validity of-Words 
used in statute to be interpreted in popular sense. 
Statutory Construction: Provision of earlier statute can be made 
use of for purpose of construing a subsequent statute in case of 
ambiquity. 
A number of textile mills which were engaged in the business of 
D manufacture and sale of rayon yarn and staple fibre, i.e. man-made 
fibre, moved the High Courts under article 226 of the Constitution 
challenging the constitutional validity of the fee imposed upon them by 
the Textile Committee under rule 21 of the Textile Committee Rules, 
1965 made by the Central Government under s. 22 of the Textiles 
Committee Act, 1963. The levy of fee was challenged on the ground that 
E 
the Textile Committee was not rendering any service to them by way of 
inspection or examination of rayon yarn and that the element of quid 
pro quo was totally absent. 
The High Courts of Allahabad, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and 
Madras upheld the validity of the levy, w bile the Kerala High Court 
F 
took the contrary view. The parties came up in appeal to this Court. 
Four similar petitions pending in the High Court of Bombay were also 
transferred to this Court. 
Before the Court, it was contended on behalf of the textile mills (I) 
the rayon yarn and nylon yarn manufactured by them was made wholly 
G of filaments and not of fibres and therefore the same are not textiles within 
the meaning of the definition of •textiles' as contained of S. 2(g) of the 
Textile Committee Act, and hence not liable to payment of any fee in 
accordance with rule 21 of the Textile Committee Rules; and (2) the 
Textiles Committee rendered no service to the writ petitioners because 
neither they needed the services of the Committee nor the Committee 
H was in a position to render any service to them. 
880 
\ 
I 
SIRSILK LTD. v. 1EXTILES COMMITTEE 
881 
On behalf of the Revenue, the Additional Solicitor General con-
tended (1) the levy under r. 21 of the Rules was not correlated to the 
power. of inspection which the Textiles Committee had und·er s. 11 of the 
Act, but was relatable to its power to levy fees under s. 12 for the 
performance of its functions, powers and duties under s. 4 (2) the 
avowed object and purpose of the Act, as was clear from s. 3, was 
'quality control' of all textile and it would be idle to contend that rayon 
yarn and nylon yarn which were but species of what was known as 
man-made fibres, otherwise called artificial silk, and had a world 
market, should be outside the purview of the Act, (3) the Act and the 
words used therein had to be interpreted not on a technological or 
specialised scientific plane, but in a popular sense as understood by 
experts in the sphere of the textile industry and the commercial world 
dealing with it; and ( 4) the definition of 'textiles' must be given a broad C 
and liberal construction in furtherance of the object and purpose of the 
Act. 
A 
B 
Dismissing the appeals filed by the textile mills and allowing the 
appeal filed by the Textile Committee, it was 
D 
HELD: (1) In view of the fact that in the writ petitions filed in the 
High Courts the textile mills had stated that they were actually engaged 
in the manufacture of rayon. yarn and nylon yarn both of which, they 
a\'erred, were 'species of what was known as man-made fibres', their 
contention that rayon yarn and nylon yarn manufactured by them E 
were not 'yarn' and therefore did not fall within the definition of textiles 
under s. 2(g) of the Act could be countenanced. [899E-F) 
(2)- T!tere was no explicable reason for the Legislature to have 
excluded rayon yarn and nylon yarn frof!l the purview of the definition 
of textiles in s.(2)(g) of the Act. In the premise, the expression 'textiles' F 
as defined in s.2(g) of the Act has to be given a broad and liberal 
construction, in furtherance of the purpose and object of the Act. [901A-B) 
(3) The Act and the words used therein have to be interpreted not 
on a technological or specialised scientific plane but in the popular sense 
as understood by experts in the 5phere of the textile industry and the G 
commercial world dealing with it. ·[90ID-E) 
( 4) The Industries (Development and Regul

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