Pursuant to the liberty given, the Central Government ultimately took the decision on the recommendation of the inter Ministerial Committee to dilute the recommendations in respect of sugar by 25 and food grains by 20 for the year July, 2002 to June, 2003 and by 50 and 40 for the year July, 2003 to June, 2004.
Aggrieved against the order passed by the Single Judge, appeals were filed before the Division Bench.
Before adverting to the facts, it may be stated that the orders passed by the High Court have worked out with the lapse of time.
Second writ petition was filed challenging the aforesaid order of the Central Government.
Both the sets of writ petitions were taken up together.
The writ petitions came up for hearing before a Single Judge who dismissed the same primarily on the ground that the decision taken by the Central Government was a policy decision and therefore beyond the judicial review.
Both these numberifications have been quashed by the judgment under appeal.
Shri A. Sharan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India does number press the appeals on any point other than the setting aside of the above quoted observations of the High Court.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7894 OF 2004 In this appeal, the challenge before the High Court was to the numberification dated 16.4.2004 issued by the Central Government under The Jute Packaging Materials Compulsory Use in Packing Commodities Act, 1987 for the period ending 30.06.2004.
One of the grounds for challenge to the numberifications was that the Central Government had issued the numberifications on the recommendations made by the Standing Advisory Committee, companystituted under Section 4 1 of the Act without associating or hearing the workers engaged in the jute industry and the agricultural producers of the jute for whose benefit the Act had been enacted.
Subject matter of the appeal in this Court today is number regarding the validity of the numberifications dated 16.4.2004 and 01.07.2004 the duration of which has already lapsed due to efflux of time.
WITH CIVIL APPAL NO.7894 OF 2004 BHAN, J. This order shall dispose of C.A. No.6880 83 of 2003 arising from the Division Bench Judgment of the High Court of Calcutta dated 27.06.2003 in G.A. No.3567 of 2002, A.P.O.T. No.664 of 2002, A.P.O.T. No.
The challenge to the companystitution of Standing Advisory Committee companysisting of only the Secretaries representing various departments without associating the jute industry or its representative being void was rejected by this Court in Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. supra .
The appeal was accepted, order of Single Judge was set aside, numberifications dated 16.4.2004 and 01.07.2004 were quashed and a direction was issued to the Central Government to maintain the status quo with regard to the use of jute packaging material as was existing prior to the issuance of the numberification dated 16.4.2004 till a fresh recommendation was made by the Standing Advisory Committee.
Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Single Judge the Indian Jute Mills Association and another filed the appeals which have been disposed of by the impugned order along with other companynected cases.
Aggrieved against the judgment of the Division Bench the Union of India has filed these appeals.
In spite of the interim stay granted by the High Court another numberification was issued on 01.07.2004 for a period of one month.
The Division Bench formulated the following four questions arising in the appeals for its determination Whether the Standing Advisory Committee which is a creature of the said Act and is statutorily obliged to act within the frame work of the said Act can make recommendations companytrary to the object and purpose of the Act Whether the impugned recommendations made by the Standing Advisory Committee for creation of a road map for gradual dilution of the protection under the Act for ultimate repeal of the Act and for formation of an inter Ministerial companymittee for the aforesaid purpose are dehors the provision of the Act and without jurisdiction Whether the impugned recommendations made by the Advisory Committee and the ultimate order passed by the Central Government as per the recommendation of the inter Ministerial Committee is in companysonance with object and purpose of the Act or ultra vires the same Whether in absence of specific recommendation by the Standing Advisory Committee the Central Government has power to make the impugned order as to the extent of protection for future year for which numberrecommendation was made by the Standing Advisory Committee.
705 of 2002, G.A. No.3758 of 2002, W.P. No.1059 of 2002, G.A. No.3568 of 2002, A.P.O.T. No.665 of 2002, W.P. No.1059 of 2002, A.P.O.T. No.707 of 2002, G.A. No.3761 of 2002, W.P. No.1207 of 2002 and Civil Appeal No.7894 of 2004 arising from another Division Bench Judgment of the same High Court dated 6.7.2004 in G.A. No.2229 of 2004, A.P.O.T. No.314 of 2004 and W.P. No.870 of 2004.
As the duration of the numberification was for a period of one year which has already lapsed the order of the High Court has worked itself out.
As against this the learned senior companynsel for the respondents companytended that to carry out the objects and purposes for which the Act was enacted, it was incumbent upon the Standing Advisory Committee to associate and hear the representatives of the growers and the workers engaged in the production of raw jute and jute packaging material for whose benefit the Act was enacted, before it companyld make any meaningful recommendation to the Central Government.
The challenge in the writ petition was regarding the extent of power or jurisdiction of the Advisory Committee to make its recommendation to the Central Government.
The appeals filed by the Union of India are dismissed except to the extent indicated above.
It is companytended by him that the observations made by the Division Bench quoted above are obiter in nature as the same did number arise either from the pleadings of the parties or the companytentions raised before the Division Bench.
The Court passed an interim order on 25.04.2002 directing the Union of India number to proceed in respect of such recommendations made by the Standing Advisory Committee.
Writ petitions were filed against the aforesaid order.
By an order dated 15.05.2002, although the interim order was extended, the Union of India was given liberty to hold meeting and take decision, but number to give effect to the same without the leave of the Court.
