IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01.07.2009 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU W.P.No.1565 of 1998, W.P.Nos.20801 to 20820 of 1998 and W.P.No.17709 of 1999 W.P.No.1565 of 1998 South Tamil Nadu Beedi Manufacturers' Association Regd.No.6/84-A) R/84-A, Nehuruji Road, Melapalayam, Tirunelveli 627 005. ... Petitioner vs. Union of India, Ministry of Civil Supplies, Consumer Affairs & Public Distribution, Department of Civil Supplies by its Secretary, Block No.12-A, Janam House, New Delhi 110 011. ... Respondent
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records from the respondent in respect of G.S.R.140(E Department of Civil Supplies dated 7.3.1997 and issue a writ of declaration, declaring that paragraph 2 of the impugned notification dated 7.3.1997 issued by the respondent is violative of Article 14, 19 (1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and that the exemption earlier granted under the provisions of Rule 34(c) of the standard weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 shall continue to enure that the Act and Rules are not applicable insofar as the members of the petitioner Association is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.Dwarakanathan
For Respondent : Mrs.S.Seethalakshmi
W.P.Nos.20801 to 20820 of 1998
M/s. Shaik Ismail & Sons,
Bavuta Mark Bidi Manufacturers,
No.6, Ramanuja Iyer Street,
Washermenpet, Chennai 600 021,
rep. by its Partner,
S.A.Mohamed Ehsanullah. .. Petitioner in W.P.Nos.20801 & 20802/1998
M/s. Habeebur Rahman Sons
“S” Beedi factor, Santhapet,
Gudiyattam 632 602 rep. by its
Partner, A.Mohamed Ashraf ..Petitioner in W.P.Nos.20803 & 20804/1998
M/s. V.K.Abdul Jabbar Sahib Son,
100 Mark Bidi Manufacturers,
No.1/128, Pilliar Koil Street,
Virudhamper, Vellore 632 006
(Vellore District),
rep. by its Partenr,
V.R.Fazlul Haq. ..Petitioner in W.P.Nos.20805 & 20806/1998
M/s. K.Abdul Azeez Son & Co.,
No.4, Horse Bidi Manufacturers,
No.4, Big Alipuran Street,
Vellore 632 004,
rep. by its Partner,
K.Iqbal Ahmed. ..Petitioner in W.P,Nos.20807 & 20808/1998
M/s. K.Md. Anwer Basha,
Sole Proprietor,
M/s. K.bdul Azeez Sahib & Sons,
No.10, Mark Bidi Manufacturers,
No.153, Chunnambukara Street,
Vellore. ..Petitioner in W.P.Nos.20809 & 20810/1998
M/s. S.P.Abdul Rahim Son,
99 MarkBidi Manufacturers,
No.8, Commissary Bazaar Street,Vellore 632 004
rep. by tis Sole Proprietrix,
K.Mehrunnissa Begum. ..Petitioner in W.P.Nos.20811 & 20812/1998
M/s. K.A.Abdul Hadi & Bros.,
Doulath Bidi Manufacturers,
No.17, Fort Street,
tirupattur 635 601,
rep. by its Partner,
K.A.Anwer Basha ..Petitioner in W.P.Nos. 20813 & 20814/1998
M/s. S.Ebrahim sahib & Co.,
Fan Mark Bidis,
N.42, Bazaar Street,
Ranipet 632 401,
rep. by tis Partner,
Chand Basha ..Petitioner in W.P.Nos. 20815 & 20816/1998
M/s. V.Abdul lJabbar Sahib Son,
Goat Mark Bidi Manufacturers,
No.15-16, Long Bazaar,
Vellore 632 004,
(Vellore District),
rep. by its Partner,
V.I.Md.Ghouse. ..Petitioner in W.P.Nos. 20817 & 20818/1998
M/s. M.Abdul samad Sahib Sons,
Samad Bidis,
No.44-46, Big Alipuran Street,
Vellore 632 004,
rep. by its Partner,
S.Abdul basith ..Petitioner in W.P.Nos. 20819 & 20820/1998
vs.
1. Union of India,
Ministry of Civil Supplies,
Consumer Affairs & Public Distribution,
Department of Civil Supplies
by its Secretary,
Block No.12-A, Janam House,
New Delhi 110 011.
2. The Director of Legal Metrology,
Government of India,
Ministry of Civil Supplies,
Consumer, Affairs, Weights
and Measures,
Shajahan Road,
New Delhi. … Respondents in all the W.Ps.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent pertaining to the Notification No.140(E) dated 7.3.1997 withdrawing the exemption granted under Notification No.346(E) dated 30.6.1978 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.D.S.Philip
For Respondent : Mrs.S.Seethalakshmi
W.P.No.17709 of 1999
Nellai Mavatta Beedi Urpathiyalar Sangam
(Regd. No.11/1958)
rep. by its Secretary,
4-G, (II Floor) Salai Street,
Sindupoondurai,
Tirunelveli627 001 … Petitioner
vs.
Union of India,
Ministry of Civil Supplies,
Consumer Affairs & Public Distribution,
Department of Civil Supplies
by its Secretary,
Block No.12-A, Janam House,
New Delhi 110 011. … Respondent
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring that the paragraph 2 of the impugned notification dated 7.3.1997 in G.S.R.No.140(E) issued by the respondent is violative of Article 14, 19 (1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and that the exemption earlier granted under the provisions of Rule 34(c) of the standard weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 shall continue to enure to the members of the petitioner Association that the Act and Rules are not applicable to them.
For Petitioner : Mr.Dwarakanathan For Respondent : Mrs.S.Seethalakshmi C O M M O N O R D E R
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 these writ petitions, the challenge is to paragraph 2 of notification issued by the Central Government in GSR 140(E) Department of Civil supplies dated 7.3.97 withdrawing exemption in respect of Beedi Packages originally contained in Rule 34(c) of the Standard of Weights and Measures (Packages Commodities) Rules, 1977.
2. The Standard of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 was enacted to establish standards of weights and measures, to regulate inter-State trade or commerce in weights, measures and other goods which are sold or distributed by weight, measure or number and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
3. Section 83 of the Act empowers the Central Government to make Rules to carry out the provisions of the Act by notification. In exercise of the said power, the Central Government made the Standards of Weight and Measures (Packages Commodities) Rules, 1977. Rule 5 to Rule 13 need mention at this juncture to understand the scheme of the Rules. Rule 5 speaks of certain commodities specified in the third schedule to be packed and sold in recommended standard packages , Rule 6 speaks of declarations to be made on every package, Rule 7 speaks of Principal display panel, Rule 8 speaks of where the declaration to appear, Rule 9 speaks of the manner in which declaration shall be made, Rule 10 speaks of declaration of name and address of the manufacturer, etc., Rule 11 speaks of General provisions relating to declaration of quantity, Rule 12 speaks of manner 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, tricycle or motor vehicle within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is undertaken;
( (iii) any package containing a commodity of net content of 5 kilograms or 5 litres or less and displayed for sale a the retail outlet;
(iv) any package containing a commodity to be sold by number or length and displayed for sale at the retail outlet;)
(b) the net weight or measure of the commodity is twenty grams or twenty millilitres or less, if sold by weight or measure:
(Provided that this exemption shall not apply to packages containing any drug or medicine.):
(Provided that the declaration in respect of maximum retail price and net quantity shall be declared on packages containing 109 to 209 or 10 ml to 20 ml.)
( (c) it contains bidis or incense sticks)”
5. The Government issued GSR 140(E) dated 7.3.1997 amending Rule 34 thereby omitting specifically Rule 34(c). Challenging the same these writ petitions have been filed.
6. In all these writ petitions, it is mainly contended that all along the said exemption was enjoyed by the Beedi manufacturers and the Government has suddenly withdrawn the same without any rhyme or reason. It is further contended that no object is sought to be achieved by making the amendments.
7. The notification will result not only in curtailing and reduction in the daily earnings of the packers or home workers but may inevitably lead to mechanization of the packing process whereby a large section of employees who depend on this income would be 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 hardship to the manufacturers and the workers employed in the Beedi Industries that is likely to occur due to the amendment.
9. It may be true that because of the withdrawal of the exemption there may be some hardship caused to both the manufacturers as well as the workers but that cannot be a ground to strike down the Rule. It is for the Government to consider all these factors and to bring in appropriate legislation and this Court cannot take the role of legislature as the powers of legislation lies only with the legislature. If this Court embarks upon the same, it would certainly amount to exceeding its constitutional bounds. Under the Constitution, the powers of the three wings of the Government are well defined. One cannot interfere with the powers of the other. The hardship which are likely to be experienced by the petitioners cannot be considered by this Court as a valid ground to strike down the Rule.
10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that several representations were made to the Government in this regard for restoring the exemption given to the Beedi Industries but of no avail.
11. In my considered opinion, to give exemption to a particular commodity from the application of the Rules is a policy matter of the Government into which this Court cannot interfere with. If the petitioners feel that they have got any grievance, they can very well approach the Government for redressal of the same. Thus, I do not find any reason to strike down the impugned notification.
12. In view of the above, the writ petitions fails and the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
vsi
To
1. The Secretary,
Union of India,
Ministry of Civil Supplies,
Consumer Affairs & Public Distribution,
Department of Civil Supplies
Block No.12-A, Janam House,
New Delhi 110 011.
2. The Director of Legal Metrology,
Government of India,
Ministry of Civil Supplies,
Consumer, Affairs, Weights
and Measures, Shajahan Road,
New Delhi