9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 735X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ardship caused to manufacturers or workers cannot be ground to strike down the rule. Government to consider such factors and court cannot take role of legislature. Granting exemption to particular commodity, policy matter of Govt. and court cannot interfere. - 1565, 20801-20820 of 1998 - - - Dated:- 1-7-2009 - S. Nagamuthu, J. S/Shri Dwarakanathan and S.D.S. Philip, for the Petitioner. Ms. S. Seethalakshmi, for the Respondent. [Order (Common)].- The petitioner in W. P. No. 1565/1998 is an Association known as South Tamil Nadu Beedi Manufacturers Association whose members are manufacturers of Beedi. The petitioners in W. P. Nos. 20801 to 20820 of 1998 and W. P. No. 17709 of 1999 are all manufacturers of Beedi. In all thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in which declaration of quantity shall be expressed, Rule 13 is the statement of units of weight, measure or number. 4. Rule 34 is to the following effect, (before the impugned amendment) "34. Exemption in respect of certain packages - (1) Nothing contained in these rules shall apply to any packages containing a commodity if- (a) the marking on the package unambiguously indicates that it has been specially packed for the exclusive use of any industry as a raw material or for the purpose of servicing any industry, mine or quarry : (i) any yarn which is sold in hands to handloom weavers; (ii) any component, part or material used in any workshop, service station or any other place where servicing or repairing of any bicycle, tricyc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rendered jobless which is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The exemption will result in huge losses to the manufacturers. Following the specification in the Rule in respect of packing would cause hardship to the manufacturers and the workers. 8. I have considered the above submissions. At the outset, I have to state that the petitioners have not challenged the vires of the Rule on the ground that it is either violative of the provisions of the Constitution or that of the provisions of the parent Act or on the ground that by issuing of the impugned notification, the Central Government has exceeded in its Rule making power or it is unreasonable. Per contra, all the grounds raised by the petitioners refer only to the har ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
