Unguided discretionary power under textile control rules was struck down, while converted worsted spindles were covered for regularisation.

The article explains that converted cotton spindles fitted with gill boxes and used for worsted yarn fell within the intended scope of the regularisation scheme, so refusal to regularise them was unsustainable. It further states that clause 3(1) of the Woollen Textiles Control Order was invalid because it vested unguided discretion in the Textile Commissioner without standards, offending Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). For the same reason, the second proviso to rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules was also held invalid and inoperative. The writ petitions succeeded and the refusal to regularise was quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether unauthorised converted cotton spindles capable of manufacturing worsted yarn were covered by the Press Note for regularisation; (ii) whether clause 3(1) of the Woollen Textiles (Production and Distribution) Control Order, 1962 was ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution; and (iii) whether the second proviso to rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was ultra vires the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Issue (i): Whether unauthorised converted cotton spindles capable of manufacturing worsted yarn were covered by the Press Note for regularisation.

Analysis: Clause 3(1) of the Control Order applied to any spindle worked by power and used for manufacturing woollen yarn, including worsted yarn. The Press Note was issued to regularise unauthorised worsted spindles and its language, particularly the reference to spindles having gill boxes and the requirement of proof of actual installation and working, showed that it was not confined to original worsted spindles alone. Converted cotton spindles fitted with gill boxes and used for worsted yarn were within the intended scope of the regularisation scheme. The refusal to regularise merely because the spindles were converted cotton spindles was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether clause 3(1) of the Woollen Textiles (Production and Distribution) Control Order, 1962 was ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Analysis: The provision conferred wide discretionary power on the Textile Commissioner to permit or refuse the acquisition, installation, sale, removal, and use of power-driven spindles for woollen yarn. The provision itself supplied no guiding criteria for the exercise of that discretion, and the availability of an appeal did not cure the absence of standards. A restriction that permits unguided and potentially discriminatory decision-making fails the test of reasonableness and offends the guarantee against arbitrariness.

Conclusion: Clause 3(1) was held to be ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) and invalid.

Issue (iii): Whether the second proviso to rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was ultra vires the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Analysis: The proviso was linked to the requirement of written permission from the Textile Commissioner for installation and working of spindles. Since clause 3(1) itself was invalid, the proviso could not stand independently in the manner contended. In any event, the proviso also suffered from the same defect of unguided discretion and absence of standards, and was therefore vulnerable on constitutional grounds.

Conclusion: The second proviso to rule 174 was held to be invalid and inoperative.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, the refusal to regularise the spindles was quashed, and the impugned regulatory restriction was struck down for conferring unguided discretionary power.

Ratio Decidendi: A subordinate regulatory provision that confers unguided and absolute discretion on an executive authority, without prescribing standards to control that discretion, is liable to be struck down as arbitrary and unconstitutional; where the text and context of a regularisation scheme cover the category in question, it cannot be denied on a narrow and artificial construction.

---