UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus INDIAN JUTE MILLS ASSOCIATIONS AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 1222 · Decided: 05-05-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS~ 
v. 
INDIAN JUTE MILLS ASSOCIATIONS AND ORS. 
MAY 5, 2005 
B 
[ASHOK BHAN AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Jute Packaging Materials (Compulsory use in Packing Commodities) 
Act, 1987: 
c 
· ss. 3 and 4-Progressive dilution of protection of jute packing material-
-
High Court holding that Central Government could not resort to progressive 
dilution of protection of jute packing material for purpose of ultimate repeal 
,... 
of the Act-Directing Standing Advisory Committee to make fresh 
recommendation after hearing workers engaged in jute industry and 
D agriculturists producing raw jute-Held, the orders of High Court have worked 
out by efflux of time-However, observations made by High Court are set 
aside. 
In the interests of production of raw jute and jute packaging material 
and of persons engaged in the production thereof, Parliament enacted the 
-' 
E Jute Packaging Materials (Compulsory Use in Packing Commodities) Act, 
1987. By order dated t.3.2002, the Central Government reduced the extent 
of proteCtion in respect of sugar from 100% to 90%. Later the Standing 
Advisory Committee constituted u/s 4(i) of the Ad, made the 
recommendations for formation of inter-Ministerial Committee consisting 
F 
of Ministers of the Ministries concerned for the purpose of formulating a 
~ 
road map for the progressive dilution of compulsory packaging norms for 
food grains and sugar under the Act to facilitate its repeal. Writ petitions 
challenging the order of the Central Government were filed in the High 
Court. Meanwhile the Central Government on the recommendation of the 
Inter-Ministerial Committee, took a decision to dilute the protection in 
G respect of sugar by 25% and food grains by 20% for the year July 2002 
to June 2003 and by 50% and 40% for the year July 2003 to June 2004. 
This led to filing of another writ petition. All the writ petitions were 
-1 
dismissed by single Judge of the High Court. On appeal by the Indian Jute 
I 
Mills Association etc., the Division Bench of the High .Court held that the 
H 
1222 
U.0.1. v. INDIAN JUTE MILLS ASSOCIATIONS 
1223 
Central Government could not act contrary to the legislative policy and A 
resort to progressive dilution of the protection of jute packaging materials 
for the purpose of ultimate repeal of the Act. Aggrieved, the Union of India 
filed Civil Appeals No. 6880-6883 of 2003. 
In yet another writ petition the notification dated 16.4.2004 issued. B 
under the Act for the period ending June 30, 2004 and the Notification 
dated 1.7.2004 for a period of one month, were challenged on the ground, 
inter alia, that the notifications were issued without hearing the workers · 
engaged in jute industry and the agriculturists producing raw jute. The 
Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. However, the Division Bench 
quashed the Notifications and directed the Standing Advisory Committee C 
to make fresh recommendation after hearing the writ petitioners. 
Aggrieved, the Union of India filed Civil Appeal No. 7894 of 2004. 
Pending appeals, the impugned orders passed by the High Court 
have worked out with lapse of time. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD : Civil Appeal No. 6880-6883 of 2003 etc.: 
D 
I. The question regarding power of the Central Government to pass 
any order regarding the progressive dilution or protection of the jute E 
packaging material for its ultimate repeal was not under challenge. This 
point did not arise from the pleadings of the parties. The observations 
made are without there being any foundation of facts laid in the pleadings 
and the points formulated by the Division Bench for its consideration. The 
Standing Advisory Committee is constituted under the Act and not the F 
Central Government. The observations made by the High Court being 
contrary to the pleadings and obiter in nature are set aside. The same 
would not be either binding or taken as a precedent for any future 
reference. 11229-C-EJ 
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) ltd and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., G 
119961 10 sec 104, referred to. 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7894 OF 2004 
2. The total duration of the two notifications was three and a half 
months which has lapsed due to efflux of time. The order of the High Court H 
1224 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] 3 S.C.R. 
A to that extent has already worked out. There is no provision in the Act 
requiring the Standing Ad~isory Committee to afford a hearing to any 
person associated with either the production of the raw 

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