Karnataka High Court
Ramappa vs Government Of India/Bharath Sarkar on 30 January, 2012
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J.Gunjal
WP No.7578/2008
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
TH
30
DATED THIS THE DAY OF JANUARY, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJIT J.GUNJAL
WRIT PETITION NoJ578/2008 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
RAMAPPA
S/O. BHIMAPPA KULGOD
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
0CC: WEAVERS, MANGALVERPET
NEAR BALAJI TEMPLE AT POST BANAHATTI
BAGALKOT DISTRICT 587 311
-
2. SHANKARLINGAPPA
Sb MAHALINGAPPA JUNJAPPANAVAR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 0CC: WEAVERS
SOMAVARPET, BANAHATTI,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587 311
3. ASHOK S/0 IRAPPA BADDUR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 0CC: WEAVERS
BADDURLANE, BANAHATTI
BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587 311
4. MAHADEV S/O MALKAPPA MUNNALLI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 0CC: WEAVERS
NEAR BUS STAND, BANAHATTI
BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587 311
5. PRABHAT S/0 PAN DITHAPPA KARLATHI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, DCC: WEAVERS
WP No.7578/ 2008
:2:
MANGALVAR PET, BANAHATfl,
BAGALKOT DISTRICr-587 311
6. RAMAPPA 5/0 DEVENDRAPPA BHANDRANAVAR
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
0CC: WEAVERS, SOMAVARPET
BAGALKOT DISTRICr-587 311
7. RAMDAS 5/0 SHANKAR SINGAN
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 0CC: WEAVERS
AT POST RAMAPUR, BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587 314
S. DANAJANAYA S/0 GANGAPPA HOSKOTE
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 0CC: WEAVERS
AT POST RAMPUR, BAGALKOT DISTRICr-587 314
9. GIRIMALLAPPA S/0 ANANDAPPA BAGAWADI
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
AT POST HOSUR, BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587 311
10. MAHADEVAPPA S/0 MAHALINGAPPA JAMAKHANDI
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 0CC: WEAVERS
AT POST HOSUR
BAGAKOT DISTRICT-587 311
11. IRAPPA Sb ESHWARAPPA YADA WAD
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 0CC: WEAVERS
HALEPETE GALU, AT POST TERADAL
BAGALKOT DISTRICr-587 315
12. MALLAPPA S/0 BASPARAPPA JADI
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 0CC: WEAVERS
DEVARA) NAGAR, AT POST TERDAL
BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587 315
13. RUDRAPPA Sb IRAPPA VANTAGUDI
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
0CC: NEKARIKA, KALLATflGALU
WP No.7578/ 2008
:3:
AT POST TERADAL, BAGALKOT DISTRICTe587 315
14. ESHWARAPPA 5/0 PARAPPA JADI
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 0CC: WEAVERS
GUMMAThAGALU, AT POST TARDAL
BAGALKOT DISTRICr-587 315. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.S.R.HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADV.)
AND:
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA/BHARATH SARKAR
MINISTER OF TEXTILES
REGIONAL OFFICE OF THE DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSIONER OF HANDLOOMS
VASTRA MANTRALAYA NEW DELHI
REP BY JOINT SECRETARY
2. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTER OF TEXTILES
REGIONAL OFFCIE OF THE DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSIONER OF HANDLOOMS
RAJAJI BHAVAN, BESENT NAGAR
CHENNAI 600 090
REP BY JOINT SECRETARY
3. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
DEVELOPMENT OF COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF HANDLOOM AND TEXTILES
NO. 14/3A, R.P. BUILDINGS
N.T. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002
4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HANDLOOM AND TEXTILE
ZILLA PANCHAYATH
BAGALKOT, BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587 333
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, CGSC FOR Ri AND
2)
WP No.7578/ 2008
:4:
THIS PtTLTION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUNGED NOTIFICATION ANN-C, DT.27.11.96 SO FAR
ITS RELATES TO INCLUSION OF SAREE ITEM FOR
PRODUCTION OF HAND LOOM ONLY IS ILLEGAL AND ALSO
SAME IS MADE WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE MANDATORY
PROCEDURE AND SAME IS UNCONSTITUTION AT AND SAME
HAS TO BE SET ASIDE BY EXERICISING POWER OF WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR NAY OTHER APPROPRITE WRIT OR ORDER.
THIS PtTITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners claim to be weavers and mainly depending on their livelihood on the power looms. In Karnataka state, mainly the weavers and owners of power looms are found in Banahatti, Rabhakavi and other parts of the Bagalkot district. Suffice it to say that the respondents have come out with a policy, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-C Indicating that under the Implementation of Handlooms (Reservation of Articles for Production) Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'), revised order notifying 11 items of textile articles are b WP No.7578/ 2008 :5: exclusively reserved for handlooms. The said notification dated 27.11.1996 according to the petitioners is sought to be Implemented now.
Hence, this writ petition.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the peti tioners as well as the respondents.
3. Apparently, it cannot be said that this is an unf air trade practice inasmuch as certain clothes which are being weaved by handlooms are sought to be exclusively reserved for them. All the petitioners are run ning power looms. Apparently, they cannot be heard to say that It is detrimental to their interest. It is also to be noticed that the petitioners were not in a positio n to get an interim order from this Court inasmuch as the said notification which Is of the year 1996 is ope rating even as on today.
/ WP No.7578/2008 :6:
4. Another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that according to Sectio n 4 of the Act, a Committee is required to be constitute d but that has not been constituted. If it is so, concerned authority to do so. With this observation, petition sta nds rejected.
Sd/ JUDGE Jm/