Appeal Nos
1334 43 of 1993
From the Judgments and Orders dated 29101991 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in WP Nos
9133 8920 8074 7932 and 1111990 811391 dt
311091 820190 898791 dt
301091 9165  7656 of 1990 KK VenugopalCS Vaidyanathan Vijayanarayana and Ms Vijayalakshmi Menon for the Appellants
K Swamy and Ms A Subhashini for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH J
Special leave granted in all the petitions
The appellants petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Clause 16 of the Textile Control Order 1986 the 1986 Order and the notification issued thereunder dated March 29 1990 as amended on May 11 1990 and May 17 1990 the notification by the Textile Commissioner before the Andhra Pradesh High Court by way of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
The High Court by its judgment dated October 29 1991 dismissed the writ petitions
These appeals by way of special leave are against the judgment of the High Court The appellants are the Spinning and Weaving Mills in the State of Andhra Pradesh
The cotton yarn manufactured by the mills is of different 406 varieties
It is classified on the basis of counts
Yarn with 1 to 40 counts is coarse 40 to 60 medium between 60 and 100 fine and anything above 100 counts is described as very fine
There are two methods of packing the yarn
One is the cone form packing which is used in power loom and hosiery industry
The other is hank form packing which is exclusively consumed by the handloom industry
Spinning and packing are the two stages of manufacturing yarn
Raw cotton has to pass through the process of blow room carding drawing simplex and finally the ring frame to complete the process of spinning
The process of packing starts thereafter
For the cone form packing the ring frame cops are fed to the winding machines and for the hank form packing the cops are fed to the reeling machines
According to the appellants they are packing the yarn in cone form
They have not installed the reeling machines and as such it is not possible for them to pack the yarn in hank form
The 1986 Order was issued by the Government of India in exercise of its powers under section 3 of the 
Clause 16 of the 1986 Order is as under  16 1 The Textile Commissioner may from time to time issue directions in writing to any manufacturer or class of manufacturers or manufacturers generally regarding a the clauses or specifications of cloth or yarn which each manufacturer or class of manufacturers of or manufacturers generally shall or shall not manufacture b the maximum or minimum quantities of cloth or yarn which such manufacture or class of manufacturers or manufacturers generally shall manufacture during such period as may be specified in the Order c the maximum price ex factory wholesale or retail at which any class or specification of cloth or yarn may be sold or d the principles on which and the manner in which such maximum prices may be determined by a manufacturer and e the manner of packing of yarn in hanks cones or in 407 any other form and in such proportion as he may consider necessary or expedient Provided that in issuing any direction under this clause the Textile Commissioner shall have regard to i the demand for cloth or yarn ii the needs of the general public iiithe special requirements of the industry for such cloth or yarn iv the capacity of the manufacturer or class of manufacturers or manufacturers generally to manufacture or pack different descriptions or specifications of cloth or yarn and v the necessity to make available to the general public cloth of mass consumption
2 While issuing any direction under sub clause 1 the Textile Commissioner may also provide that such direction shall be with reference to the quantity of cloth or yarn packed by the manufacturer or class of manufacturers or manufacturers generally during the period specified in the direction
3 Every manufacturer or class of manufacturers or manufacturers generally to whom a direction has been issued shall comply with it
4 Where on an application made by any manufacturer or class or manufacturers or otherwise the Textile Commissioner is satisfied that any direction issued by him under this clause causes undue hardship or difficulty to any such manufacturer or class of manufacturers he may by order and for reasons to be recorded in writing direct that the direction shall not apply or shall apply subject to such modification as may be specified in the order to such manufacturer or class of manufacturers
 408 In exercise of the powers under Clause 16 of the 1986 Order the Textile Commissioner issued the notification
The operative part of the notification is re produced hereunder  2
Every producer of yarn shall pack yarn for civil consumption in hank form in each half yearly period commencing from April September 1990 period and in every subsequent half yearly period in proportion of not less than fifty percent of total yarn packed by him during each half yearly period for civil consumption Provided that not less than eighty percent of the yarn required to be packed in hank form shall be of counts 40s and below in regard to category 1 at Annexure I to this Notification  Provided further that the obligation to pack hank yarn pertaining to a particular half yearly period can be fulfilled before the end of the month succeeding such period to which the obligation pertains
 At this stage we may briefly notice the earlier litigation which ended with the judgment of the Madras High Court in Sri Rani Lakshmi GS  W Mills Pvt Ltd  Others vs Textile Commissioner Bombay  Ors AIR 1986 Madras 66
In Rani Lakshmi Mills  case the constitutional validity of Clause 215 of the cotton textile Control Order 1948 1948 Order and the notification dated June 29 1979 issued thereunder were challenged
The said Notification was in similar terms as the notification before us in these appeals
Clause 215 of the 1948 Order was as under  5 The Textile Commissioner may by General or Special Order direct any manufacturer or class of manufacturers to pack yarn in hanks cones or in any other form and in such proportion as he may consider necessary or ex pedient and thereupon such manufacturers or class of manufacturers shall be bound to comply with such directions
It was argued before the Madras High Court that Clause 215 of the 1948 Order did not provide any guidelines for the exercise of power by the 409 Textile Commissioner and as such was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
The High Court accepted the argument and struce down Clause 215 of the 1948 Order on the following reasoning A bare reading of the provision of clause 215 would therefore show that the proviso under that clause gives completely uncontrolled and uncanalized power which can only be described as an arbitrary power depending upon what he considers is necessary or expedient Special leave petitions 12569 9284 against the judgment of the Madras High Court were dismissed by this Court on February 21 1991
Because of the judgment of the Madras High Court in Rani Lakshmi Mills case the 1948 Order was repealed and the 1986 Order was promulgated
Clause 161 of the 1986 Order gives power to the Textile Commissioner to issue directions providing the manner of packing of yarn in hanks cones or in any other form and in such proportion as he may consider necessary or expedient
Proviso to Clause 161 lays down complete guidelines for the exercise of power by the Textile Commissioner
Relying upon Rani Lakshmi Mills  case the learned counsel for the appellants have contended that identical notification having been struck down by the Madras High Court and the judgment upheld by this Court the respondents are bound by the same and the Textile Commissioner had no authority to issue fresh notification in similar terms
In any case according to the learned counsel the impugned notification is liable to be struck down on the same grounds
We do not agree with the learned counsel
The notification struck down by the Madras High Court was issued under Clause 215 of the 1948 Order
The High Court held Clause 215 of the 1948 Order unconstitutional and as a consequence struck down the notification dated June 29 1979
The present notification has been issued under Clause 161 of the 1986 Order
Unlike Clause 215 of the 1948 Order proviso to Clause 161 of the 1986 Order provides complete guidelines to the Textile Commissioner to issue the directions envisaged thereunder
As such the ground of attack which was available to the petitioners before the Madras High Court is not available to the appellants before us
We therefore reject the contention based on the judgment of the Madras High Court in Rani Lakshmi Mills  case
410 Mr Venogopal and Mr Vaidyanathan learned counsel for the appellants have then contended that the appellants do not manufacture hank yarn
The contention is that the respondents cannot compel the appellants to manufacture something for which the appellants have not installed the necessary machinery and other superstructure
The notification according to the learned counsel infracts their fundamental right under Article 191g of the Constitution of India
We see no force in the contention
The Textile Industry in this country is the second largest industry next to agriculture providing employment to millions of people
This industry is accounting for 20 of the total industrial output
The appellant mills are part of the textile industry in the State of Andhra Pradesh
The respondents in their written statement before the High Court have elaborately explained the spinning and the packing processes undertaken by the appellant mills
According to the respondents it is not correct that the appellants are being forced to manufacture something which they are not manufacturing already
The five stages of spinning blow room carding drawing simplex and ring frame are common and only thereafter the ring frame cops are either packed in hank form or in cone form
The respon dents have given cogent reasons for issuing the impugned notification
We may briefly state the same
The textile industry consists of three sectors namely Mill Sector Powerloom Sector and Handloom Sector
The primary product in the industry is yarn
It is produced only by the Mill sector
The Powerloom and Handloom Sectors manufacture fabrics and they depend upon the Mill Sector for yarn
The yarn is packed in two forms namely cone form and hank form
The cone form is consumed entirely by the Powerloom Sector and the hank form by the Handloom Sector
The handloom industry is the largest cottage industry in India
Nearly one third of the country s requirement of cloth is met by this Sector
As per the National Handloom Census 1987 88 there were 39 million handlooms spread all over the country out of which three million were engaged in production of cotton cloth
The Handloom Sector provided direct employment to 84 million during 198889 and indirect employment to millions of people
The production target for Handloom Sector for the Seventh Plan was 4600 million mts
In order to achieve the said production target a minimum of 460 million kgs of hank was required
The employment generated in the three sectors during the year 1988 was 8422 5095 and 1181 lakh persons in Handloom Sector Powerloom Sector and Mill Sector respectively
The production of cloth 411 for Handloom Sector during the Eighth Plan has been targeted at 7000 million mts
out of which cotton cloth is 5610 million mts
In order to achieve this target 561 million kgs of hank yarn is required
Against the said requirement only 355 million kgs
of cotton yarn is being packed in hank form
According to the respondents there is a big gap between the demand and supply
This causes scarcity of yarn in the market and results in spiralling of prices
It further results in unemployment in Handloom Sector
In order to make available sufficient quality of hank yarn at reasonable prices and also for the sustenance of Handloom workers it became necessary to reserve hank yarn for Handloom Sector by making it obligatory on the part of the manufacturers of yarn to pack a certain percentage of their production packet for civil consumption in the form of hanks
We are satisfied that impugned notification has been issued in the interest of the general public and also for the larger interest of the textile industry
It is not disputed that under Clause 4 of the Industrial Licence granted to the appellants one of the conditions is as under  the packing of yarn in hank form and count wise production shall be in accordance with the policy in force and the directions issued by the Textile Commissioner in this regard from time to time
 The appellants having accepted the above condition while taking the licence cannot now turn round and say that they are not bound by the same
Mr Vaidhyanathan further contended that under the impugned notification unequals have been treated as equals
According to him different mills have installed different machinery and have different equipments
The contention is that the impugned notification is violative of Article 14 as it has been made uniformly applicable to mills which do not have the same capacity to produce hank yarn
We see no force in the contention
The impugned notification has been made applicable uniformly to all the producers of yearn
The appellants are required to pack yarn in hank form in the proportion as provided in the notification keeping in view the total yarn packed by the mill concerned
In any case the grievance of 412 the appellants has been substantially mitigated by the press note dated May 11 1990 issued by the Textile Commissioner Bombay
The relevant part is re produced hereunder  2
The Government have now reinstituted the erstwhile relaxation of getting hank yarn obligation fulfilled by transfer of surplus hank yarn packing of another producer
Secondly the Government have also allowed a producer to get Hank yarn reeled through another producer having extra relying capacity with the permission of the Central Excise Authorities and with the arrangements through the State Handloom Corporations and Apex
Handloom Cooperative Organisations in the areas having concentration of handloom weavers
 We see no ground to interfere with the judgment of the High Court
We therefore dismiss the appeals with costs
We assess the costs as Rs 5000 to be paid by each of the appellants
GN Appeals dismissed


Summary:
The respondent an ex Naval Officer and Computer Science graduate was accused of leaking Atomic Energy Secrets and charged for violating the provisions of the and the official Secrets Act
Ultimately when he was discharged for failure of the State to obtain the necessary sanction under Section 197 Cr PC and the State challenged the correctness of the order by way of revision the respondent filed an application for the declaration that the charge sheet be declared null and void
In para 3 thereof it was stated that the charges were vitiated by fraud as the Panchnama dated May 30 1988 was fabricated as it did not contain his signature and it was ante dated
It was further averred that for three months even the copies of the remand application filed by the police were denied to him and that orders thereon were not supplied to him and that the complaint was in contra on wit the statement of witnesses
The High Court allowed this application
In the State s appeal to this Court on the question whether the High Court was justified in allowing the application flied by the respondent for declaring that the charges framed by the Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 2427th July 1990 were null and void as they were obtained by fraud practised by the state
330 Allowing the appeal setting aside the order of the High Court dated 14th October 1991 and dismissing the application of the accused for declaring the order of the Additional Sessions Judge framing the charges against him as vitiated by fraud this Court HELD1
The High Court by its order passed on 2526th March 1991 in Criminal Writ Petition No 966 of 1990 had specifically held that the question of framing charge had become final
It could not be therefore re opened
The Division Bench had clearly held that it was not open to go behind the order passed by the Single Judge on 341990 directing that the charges being framed against the accused not only under Section 3 but under Section 5 as well
Nor can any exception be taken to the finding of the Bench that the said order could not be said to have been passed without jurisdiction in as much as the Single Judge had jurisdiction to decide the revision application preferred under the provisions of the Code
332B C 2
The question of fraud raised by the accused was negatived by the Division Bench and it was held that it was not capable of being gone into as it did not form part of the substratum of the case of the prosecution and was not germane to the question of deciding as to whether he was entitled to be discharged or not
332D 3 Fraud  is false representation by one who is aware that it was untrue with an intention to mislead the other who may act upon it to his prejudice and to the advantage of the representor
It has been defined statutorily in Section 17 of the Contract Act as including certain acts committed with connivance or with intent to deceive another
In Ad ministrative Law it has been extended to failure to disclose all relevant and material facts which one has a positive duty to disclose
332G H 4
Even the most solemn proceedings stand vitiated if they are actuated by fraud
Such being the nature and consequence of it the law requires not only strict pleading of it but strict proof as well
333B 5
Facts which could be fished out from paragraphs averring fraudulent submissions could not be said to be relevant for alleging fraud
334E 6
Legal submissions cannot be equated to misrepresentation
The pleadings in the instant case fall short of the legal requirements to estab 331 lish fraud
Various sentences extracted from different judgments between the accussed and State in various proceedings could not give rise to an inference either in law or fact that the State was guilty of fraud
335H 336A In the instant case the averments in paragraphs 3 and 4 to 8 of the application do not establish fraud
No foundation giving rise to fraud was laid
It was complete misapprehension under which the accused was labouring and it was indeed unfortunate that the Single Judge of the High Court not only entertained the respondent s application but adopted a course which amounted to reviewing and setting aside orders of his predecessor without sufficient material and accepting the claim that all earlier judgments were liable to be ignored under Section 44 of the Evidence Act as the proceedings were vitiated by fraud
The Single Judge not only committed an error of procedure but misapplied the law
336B