1993 AIR SCW 829 ::1993 UJ(SC) 1 489 ::1993 (2) SCC 221 ::(1993) 1 SCR 803 (SC) ::(1993) 1 JT 453 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

Hon'ble Judge(s): L. M. Sharma, S. Mohan, N. Venkatachala , JJJ

(A) Handlooms (Reservation of Articles for Production) Act (22 of 1985) , S.3— Scope - Exclusive reservation of certain articles/class of articles for production by handlooms Cotton Textile control order does not prevail over the Act. Essential Commodities Act (10 of 1955) , S.3— Cotton Textiles (Control) Order (1948) , Cl.20— When sub-section (1) of S. 3 of the impugned Act says "notwithstanding anything contained in the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951" it means it has an overriding effect. That was the reason why subject of handloom textile was taken out of the purview of the First Schedule of Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and a separate Act had come to be passed. Merely because clause 20 of the Cotton Textile Control Order confers an enabling power that does not mean that an order issued under the Essential Commodities Act will prevail.(Para 38 40) Therefore, the Cotton Textile Control Order deals with the productions while the impugned Act is an Act which deals entirely with handloom. The order issued under Section 3 of the Act directing exclusive reservation of certain articles/class of articles for production by handlooms, is only for protection and development of handloom industry. There is no question of both the Cotton Textile Control Order and t....