1993 (2) TMI 339 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
2. Creation of monopoly in favor of handloom industry.
3. Validity of the Handlooms (Reservation of Articles for Production) Act, 1985 in light of the Cotton Textile (Control) Order, 1948.
4. Reasonableness of restrictions imposed by the Act.
5. Adequacy of representation and periodic review by the Advisory Committee.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution:

The petitioners argued that the Act and the impugned order violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Article 14 ensures equality before the law, and Article 19(1)(g) guarantees the right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business. The court examined whether the Act created a monopoly or imposed unreasonable restrictions.

2. Creation of Monopoly in Favor of Handloom Industry:

The petitioners contended that total reservation of certain textile items for handlooms created a monopoly, citing State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal Vyas AIR 1971 SC 2068. The court clarified that no monopoly was created. The reservation aimed to protect the handloom sector, which traditionally manufactured these items, from unequal competition with the powerloom sector. The court noted that the reservation orders had been in place since 1950 and had not hindered the growth of the powerloom sector.

3. Validity of the Handlooms (Reservation of Articles for Production) Act, 1985 in Light of the Cotton Textile (Control) Order, 1948:

The petitioners argued that the Cotton Textile (Control) Order, 1948, and the impugned Act could not operate in the same field. The court examined the relevant legislative entries and concluded that the Handloom Act, traceable to Items 24 and 27 of List II of the 7th Schedule, was distinct from the Cotton Textile Control Order, which dealt with finished products under Entry 33 of List III. The court held that there was no repugnance between the two, as the Handloom Act specifically addressed the protection and development of the handloom industry.

4. Reasonableness of Restrictions Imposed by the Act:

The court assessed whether the restrictions imposed by the Act were reasonable. The Act aimed to protect the handloom weavers, primarily in rural areas, from the powerful mill and powerloom sectors. The court referred to Article 43 of the Constitution, which promotes cottage industries, and found that the restrictions were reasonable and justified. The court also cited Narendra Kumar v. Union of India [1960] 2 SCR 375, emphasizing that even total prohibitions could be upheld if they met the test of reasonableness.

5. Adequacy of Representation and Periodic Review by the Advisory Committee:

The petitioners argued that the Advisory Committee did not meet as required under Rule 3(5), which mandates annual meetings. The court noted that sub-committees had conducted field visits and involved local government representatives. The Advisory Committee had considered various representations before making recommendations. The court found that the interests of the powerloom sector were represented and that periodic reviews were conducted as required.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the writ petition and connected cases, upholding the validity of the Handlooms (Reservation of Articles for Production) Act, 1985, and the impugned order. The court found that the Act did not violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, did not create a monopoly, and imposed reasonable restrictions in the interest of protecting the handloom industry. The court also confirmed that adequate representation and periodic reviews were conducted by the Advisory Committee.