l Appeals Nos
1545 1546 of 1972
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 4 8 1971 of the Gujarat High Court in SCA Nos 972 and 1527 of 1970 respectively
826 VP Raman Addl
Gen SN Prasad and
Girish Chandra for the Appellant in CA 118272 and CAS1545 4672
VM Tarkunde V N Ganpule Miss M Tarkunde and PC Kapoor for Respondents in CA 118272
VN Ganpule AK Srivastava and Vineet Kumar for RR
No 1 in CAs
1545 4672
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD J
Under the power conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Supplies Temporary Powers Act 1946 the Central Government issued an Order called The Cotton Tex tiles Control Order 1948
Clause 20 of that Order as amended reads thus  201 The Textile Commissioner may from time to time issue directions in writing to any manufacturer or class of manufacturers or the manufacturers generally regarding the classes or specifications of cloth or yarn and the maximum or the minimum quantities thereof which they shall or shall not pro duce during such periods as may be specified in the directions and they shall comply with such directions
202 In the exercise of the powers conferred upon him by sub clause 1 the Textile Commissioner shah have regard to the capacity of the producer to produce cloth and yarn of different descriptions or specifica tions and to the needs of the general pub lic
 The question for our determination in these appeals is whether if the Textile Commissioner decides to issue appro priate directions to any manufacturer or class of manufac turers it is obligatory upon him to specify therein the period for which the directions will remain in operation
As hold by this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs Jogendra Singh1 it is well settled that the word may is capable of meaning must or shall in the light of the context and that where a discretion is conferred upon a public authority coupled with an obligation the word may which denotes discretion should be construed to mean a command
Considering the purpose of the relevant empower ment and its impact on those who are likely to be affected by the exercise of the power we are clear that the power conferred on the Textile Commissioner to issue directions is coupled with the duty to specify the particular period for which the directions shall be operative
Directions of the kind envisaged by clause 20 are influenced and justified by exigencies which render it imperative that the directions be reviewed from time to time
That becomes feasible only if the directions as limited expressly to a determinate period of 1  at 202
827 Chandrachud J time at the end of which a fresh review of facts and circum stances becomes obligatory
There is a fear that a direc tion not limited in point of time may continue to operate even after it has outlived its utility for the reason merely that the need to review it is not clearly perceived
Be sides the manufacturers must know in order that they may organize their business in their own interest as well as in the interest of the community at large as to how long any particular embargo is going to be operative
Accordingly we affirm the judgment of the High Court though on the ground only that the impugned Notification in so far as it prohibits the printing of any border or heading on sarees etc
for an indefinite period is ultra vires clause 20 of the Cotton Textiles Control Order 1948 since the aforesaid clause casts an obligation or a duty upon the Textile Commissioner to specify the period during which the prohibition shall remain in force
We express no opinion on the other points including Point No 6 urged before the High Court for its consideration
The appeals are accordingly dismissed
The appellants will pay one set of costs of these appeals to the respond ents
SR Appeals dis missed


Summary:
Clause 20 of the Cotton Textiles Control Order 1948 empowers the Textile Commissioner having regard to the capacity of the producer to produce cloth and yarn of dif ferent description or specification and to the needs of the general public to issue from time to time such directions in writing to any manufacturer or manufacturers generally regarding the class or specifications of cloth or yarn and the maximum or the minimum quantities thereof which they shall or shall not produce during such periods as may be specified m the directions
The respondents  challenge to the vires of the notifi cation issued by the appellant which prohibited the printing of any border or heading on sarees etc
for an indefinite period was accepted by the Gujarat High Court
Dismissing the appeals by special leave the Court HELD 1  The impugned notification in so far as it prohibits the printing of any border and heading on sarees etc for an indefinite period is ultra vires clause 20 of the Cotton Textiles Control Order 1948 since the aforesaid clause casts an obligation or a duty upon the Textile Com missioner to specify the period during which the prohibition shall remain in force
827 B C 2 It is well settled that the word may is capable of meaning must or shall in the light of the context and that where a discretion is conferred upon a public authority coupled with an obligation the word may which denotes discretion should be construed to mean a command
Consid ering the purpose of the relevant empowerment and its impact on those who are likely to be affected by the exercise of the power it is clear that the power conferred on the Textile Commissioner in the Cotton Textile Control Order 1948 to issue directions is coupled with a duty to specify the particular period for which the directions shall be operative
826 F G State of Uttar Pradesh vs Jogendra Singh  a 202 principles reiterated