Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Messrs. Silver Cloud Tea Factory, a partnership firm, is the petitioner in W. P, 10110 of 1984 and 1493, of 1985. The petitioner in W. P. 2151 of 1985 is carrying on business as a retail dealer in tea dealing exclusively with that commodity supplied by Messrs. Silver Cloud Tea factory. In W. P. 10110 of 1984, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of declaration that the Tea (Marketing) Control Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Order ') dt. 19-4-1984 is unconstitutional and ultra vires. However, in W. P. 1493 of 1985, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of the second respondent therein dt. 21-8-1984 and to direct him to grant relaxation to the petitioner. In so far as the W. P. 2151 of 1985 is concerned, the petitioner therein has prayed for a writ of declaration that Cl. 17 of the Order dt. 19-4-1984 is void and inoperative.

2. The petitioner in W. P. 10110 of 1984, and 1493 of 1985, namely Messrs. Silver Cloud Tea Factory, applied to the Chairman of the Tea Board, Calcutta, which has been constituted the Registering authority for purposes of Cl. 17 of the Order under Cl. 20) thereof, on 11-7-1984, that it should be given the benefit of relaxation under the proviso to Cl. 17 of the Order from selling any tea through public auctions, as according to it, it had been selling tea directly in organised private outlets for several years past and if the provision of Cl. 17 of the Order to sell 70 per cent through public auction is applied, it will totally dislocate the entire organisation and would also result in the business built up with considerable effort, expense and sacrifice over several years being adversely affected. On 21-8-1984, the application for relaxation from the provisions of the Order sent in by Messrs. Silver Cloud Tea Factory was disposed of as under -

3. In W. P. 10 110 of 1984, Messrs. Silver Cloud Tea Factory has challenged the validity of the Order on the ground that discrimination had been practised in the application of the Order only to certain States in the Union of India, and not others and that the Order is violative of Art. 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. Besides, it was also claimed that making available 70 per cent of tea production to be handled by private licensed auctioneers under the clauses of the order amounted to conferment of favouritism on one class of persons, while depriving others of their business and that such diversion from one private hand to another was not in any manner sanctioned by law. The petitioner in W. P. 10110 of 1984 also maintained that it had adopted a system of distribution and pricing which had worked out very well over the years and which, it was claimed, could not in any manner be bettered or improved upon by the adoption of the auction sales system. On the aforesaid as well as other similar grounds set out in the affidavit, Messrs. Silver Cloud Tea Factory prayed for the issue of a writ of declaration that the provisions of the Order are unconstitutional and ultra vires.

8. Before the power of relaxation under the first proviso to Cl. 17 of the Order can be exercised, there must be an application submitted by a registered manufacturer. That there was such an application by Messrs. Silver Cloud Tea factory dt. 17-7-1984 is beyond dispute. The second condition for the application of the proviso is that the Registering Authority should be satisfied that undue hardship would result to any manufacturer by the enforcement of the compliance with the provisions of the Order. In the application submitted by Messrs. Silver Cloud Tea factory on 11-7-1984, it has referred to the hardship that is likely to be caused to it if the provisions of the Order are enforced. A careful perusal of the communication dt. 21-8-1984 does not in any manner indicate that the Registering authority was satisfied one way or the other. There is no indication in that communication whether, after taking into account the circumstances referred to by Messrs. Silver Cloud Tea Factory in the representation dt. 11-7-1984, the Registering authority felt satisfied that compliance with the provisions of the Order would or would not result any undue hardship to it. The next requirement under the first proviso is that reasons have-to be recorded in writing. In this case, careful perusal of the communication dt. 21-8-1984, does not disclose any reasons at all. Only after being satisfied on the application submitted by a registered manufacturer that undue hardship would be caused by enforcing compliance with the provisions of the Order, relaxation from the provisions of the Order can be granted, for the reason to be recorded in writing. Laying emphasis upon the word 'relax' occurring in the first proviso to Cl. 17 of the Order, the learned counsel for the Union of India strenuously contended that this requirement would apply only in a case where the Registering authority finally decides to grant relaxation from the provisions of the Order with reference to a particular registered manufacturer and that, therefore, there is no obligation on the part of the Registering authority to give reasons or to act in accordance with the first proviso in other cases. It is rather difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the Union of India, that only in cases where relaxation from the provisions of the Order is finally decided to be given, reasons need be given and that in other cases no reasons at all need be stated. It must be borne in mind that the Registering authority is one functioning under the Order made in the exercise of the powers conferred by subsec. (3) of S. 30 of the Tea Act 1953. In other words, the Registering authority is a functionary under a statutory order. The granting of an exemption from the operation of the provisions of the Order or a relaxation from the same is also a function to be performed by the Registering authority under the provisions of the statutory order. An application for relaxation from the provisions of the order may be disposed of either by granting it or by declining to grant it. In either event, it would be the performance of a duty cast on the Registering authority under the first proviso to Cl. 17 of the Order, which as noticed already, is a statutory order. In Ramana v. International Airport Authority of India, the Supreme Court pointed out that the power of giving licences means power to withhold them and this gives control to the Government or to the agents of the Government on the lives of many people. Likewise, in this case, the Registering authority, acting under the first proviso to Cl. 17 of the Order, had the power to grant relaxation as well as to withhold it. The effect of withholding a relaxation would undoubtedly have certain consequences upon the business activity of Messrs. Silver Cloud Tea Factory, namely, the production as well as marketing of tea produced by it. By the withholding of relaxation, Messrs. Silver Cloud Tea factory was subjected to the provisions of the Order, despite its claim that it could not be so subjected by the granting of a relaxation in its favour from the provisions of the Order. Besides, any statutory functionary dealing with applications for granting of exemptions or relaxation is ordinarily expected to either grant or decline to grant the same with reasons for the particular conclusion arrived at. Unless, the order granting or declining to grant a relaxation, is supported by reasons, it would be extremely difficult for Courts when such an order is under challenge to ascertain whether matters relevant to the exercise of a power of relaxation had been taken into account or not. To accept the argument of the learned counsel for the Union of India would be to say that the rejection of an application by the Registering authority for relaxation from the provisions of the Order can be totally arbitrary and unsupported by reasons. In my view, when a Registering authority such as the one we have in these cases is dealing with an application for relaxation under the provisions of a statutory order, it is bound to set out reasons for coming to the conclusion actually arrived at, be it in favour of the person praying for relaxation or even against him. Inasmuch as in this case, the Registering authority has summarily rejected the application for relaxation from the provisions of 'the order sent in by Messrs. Silver Cloud Tea Factory on 11-7-1984, without assigning any reason whatever,, that order cannot be sustained. On this short ground, the communication dated 21-8-1984 has to be quashed and the second respondent in W. P. 1493 of 1985 is directed to consider afresh the application made by Messrs. Silver Cloud Tea Factory under the first proviso to Cl. 17 of the Order on its merits after, giving it an opportunity and taking into account the representation dt. 11-7-1984, and pass an appropriate as well as a reasoned order within six weeks from this day. Consequently, the rule nisi is made absolute and W. P. 1493 of 1985 is allowed.