Karnataka High Court
Himatsingka Seide Limited vs The Union Of India on 22 February, 2023
-1-
WP No. 42142 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.42142 OF 2018 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.10/24, KUMARA KRUPA ROAD,
HIGH GROUNDS, BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR. C B GANAPATHY.
2. UMASHANKAR A.R.
S/O. MR. RAJARAM,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
R/AT NO.59, 1ST CROSS,
GOVERNMENT PRESS LAYOUT,
ULLAL MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 056. ... PETITIONERS
Digitally signed
by SHYAMALA (BY SRI ADHITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
Location: HIGH SRI KARAN JOSEPH, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES,
UDYOG BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI - 110 011.
2. THE OFFICE OF THE TEXTILE COMMISSIONER
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
NO.48, NEW MARINE LINES
NISHTHA BHAVAN(NEW CGO BUILDING)
-2-
WP No. 42142 of 2018
CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI - 400 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DEPUTY DIRECTOR. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MADANAN PILLAI R., CGC FOR R-1 AND R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
COMMUNICATION DATED 22/24.03.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-M ISSUED
BY THE R-2; QUASH THE LETTER DATED 20/22.07.2016 ISSUED BY
THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-J ISSUED BY THE R-2; DIRECT THE R-2
THE OFFICE OF THE TEXTILE COMMISSIONER, MINISTRY OF
TEXTILES TO FORTHWITH APPROVE AND RELEASE 5% INTEREST
REIMBURSEMENT TO THE PETITIONER UNDER THE REVISED
RESTRUCTURED TECHNOLOGY UPGRADATION FUND SCHEME
PURSUANT TO APPLICATION NO.13/2015/2600 DATED 05.01.2016
VIDE ANNEXURE-E.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioners in this writ petition have sought the following prayers:
"A. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Communication No.13(7)/RR-TUFS/ Representation/2016/TUFS345 dated 22/24.03.2017 (at Annexure M) issued by the Respondent No.2;
B. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Letter bearing F. No.13(7)/PUID/RR- TUFS/2016/TUFS/73-74 dated 20/22.07.2016 -3- WP No. 42142 of 2018 issued by the Respondent No.2 (at Annexure J) issued by the Respondent No.2;
C. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No. 2- The office of the Textile Commissioner, Ministry of Textiles to forthwith approve and release 5% Interest Reimbursement to the Petitioner under the Revised Restructured Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme pursuant to Application No.N013/2015/2600 dated 05.01.2016 (at Annexure E);"
2. Brief facts of the case are that:
The 1st petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. the 2nd petitioner is the share holder of 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner has set up a spinning plant, which is an integrated operation and is entitled to 5% IR under RR-Tufs. It is stated that despite 1st petitioner's spinning unit being a backward integration of existing weaving/processing/made up units with matching capacity, the respondent has considered the 1st petitioner's application under 2% IR category and despite the 1st petitioner having made representation to the 2nd respondent inter alia stating that the petitioner is a backward -4- WP No. 42142 of 2018 integration and could not be treated as a standalone spinning unit the impugned communication has been issued by the 2nd respondent holding that 2% IR is applicable to the 1st petitioner-company.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioners, that the impugned communication at Annexure-M dated 22/24.03.2017 and impugned letter dated 20/22.07.2016 at Annexure-J, holding that the unit of the petitioners-company falls under standalone spinning and 2% IR is applicable to the 1st petitioner-company is one without issuance of show cause notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the 1st petitioner-company.
4. Heard Sri. Adithya Sondhi, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Madanan Pillai .R, CGSC for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners would contend that the 2nd respondent has mechanically issued the impugned communication and impugned letter without any application of mind and the respondents have failed to consider the multiple representations submitted to the respondents- -5- WP No. 42142 of 2018 authorities and the material placed by EXIM Bank that the petitioner is entitled to 5% IR and not 2% IR as its machinery is backward integrated, and not a standalone spinning unit.
6. Per contra, learned Central Government Standing Counsel would justify the communication at Annexure-M and letter at Annexure-J were issued as per the guidelines of RRTUFS. However, learned counsel would fairly submit that Annexure-M could be considered as a show-cause notice by the petitioners and the petitioners are at liberty to file their objections to the said communication, on such event, the objections would be considered by the authorities, in accordance with law.
7. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is placed on record.
8. This Court has considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
9. The impugned communication at Annexure-M and letter at Annexure-J is without issuance of show cause notice -6- WP No. 42142 of 2018 and is in violation to the objects underlining the principles of natural justice. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The extent of the application depends upon the particular statutory frame work where under jurisdiction has been confirmed on the administrative authority. While passing impugned communication, the 2nd respondent should assure that sufficient opportunity and fairness should be given in the process of decision making and there cannot be any communication against a party, without affording an opportunity of hearing. Keeping in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, it is a must that the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing and recording reasons to be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which governs the exercise of power of administrative, which the impugned communication and letter lapse. The respondents-authorities do not dispute that the petitioner was not heard before issuing the communication at Annexure-M and letter at Annexure-J.
10. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:
ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed.-7-
WP No. 42142 of 2018 ii. The impugned communication dated 22/24.03.2017 at Annexure-M and letter dated 20/22.07.2016 at Annexure-J to be treated as a show-cause notice to the petitioners and the petitioners to file their objections and on filing of such objections, the 2nd respondent to consider the same taking into consideration the revised restructure technology upgradation fund scheme pursuant to the application No.013/2015/2600 dated 05/01/2016 and pass appropriate order, after affording reasonable and sufficient opportunity to the petitioners within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. In view of disposal of the writ petition, I.A.No.1/2021 would not survive for consideration.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE S*