NAGAMMAI COTTON MILLS ETC.

ASSTI. DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE OF THE TEXTILES

COMMISSIONER, MINISTRY OF TEXTILES ETC.

MARCH 25, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATIANAIK, JJ.]

Essential Commodities Act, 1955 :

C Textile (Control) Order, 1986/Textile (Developmeni and Regulation) Order 1993-Notification dated 29.5.1993---Manufacturers of hank yanr-Obligation 011 to produce the yam-Held, when the past liability was sought to be wiped out for the period from April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1995, the same pri11ciple per force would apply to the previous period from April 1, D 1990 to Septmber 30, 1992.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6774 of 1996.

From the Judgment and order date_d 23.12.94 of the Madras High E Court in W.P. No. 17988 of 1994. ·

. G

C.S. Vaidyanathan, K.V. Viswanathan, K. V. Venkataraman, Sri Vijayanarayan for thii Appellants.

AK. Srivastava and B.K. Prasad for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Delay condoned.

Leave granted .

We have heard learned counsel on both. sides.

When the matter had come up in the first instance before. another Benchin S.L.P. (C) No. 6611/95, pursuant to the concession made by the learned Additional Solicitor General, by order dated September 25, 1995 H this Court passed the order as under : 882

/ •

NAGAMMAI COITON MILLS"· ASST. DIRECTOR, REG. OFFICE OF THE 1EXTILES COMMR 883

In view of the statemenf made by learned '.Additional Solicitor 'A General that if the current obligation pursuant to the Notification dated March 20, 1995.is carried out by the petitioner, the respondents will not hold them liable for any past liability, the petitioner does not intend to press the SLP which is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted , that the petitioner has not raised any objetin t~ it; prospective 'B liability under the said Notification dated March 20, 1995".

'• Subsequently, the appellants claimed the same relief. In view of the liability which sought to be avoided by the appellants, the Union of India had filed a Review Petition before the Bench which came to be dismissed C by order dated March 13, 1996. Since the same question is involved in.these cases, the same order should equally follow. The learned counsel for the • Union of lridia seeks to contend that the 'concession relates to the period from April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1995. The liability ow sought to be wiped out .relates in addition to the above it .also relates to th_e period from April 1, 1990 to September 30, 1992. He sought to make that distinction and D contends that the matter involves frther invetigation.We do not fi'nd any force in the submission made _by .the 'le.arned counsel.. When the past liability was sought t<i be wiped out for the period from April 1, 1993 to :March 31, 1995, the same principle per force would apply to the previous period fro~ April 1, 1990 to September 30, .1992:- E ,, Under. those circmµstances, all the appeals are allowed and the orders are quashed as prayed:for. However, the oroer of.this Court does not preclude the Government to take such appropriate steps as are open c+ to them. under. law for

0 any future liability. No costs.

RP: Appeals are allowed.

:,·.

., ___ ., "''.