Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
PETITIONER:
ZIPPERS KARAMCHARI UNION
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INIDA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/09/1998
BENCH:
S.C. AGRAWAL, S.P. KURDUKAR.
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
JUDGEMENT
S.P. LURDUKAR.J.
MS. Y.K.K. Corporation, Japan, (for short ’YKK’)
an international group company, having worldwide net of
companies and business locations in various courtries, on
April 29, 1995 submitted a proposal representation to the
Foreign Investment Promotion Board, New Delhi (for short
’FIPB’) seeking approval to set up integrated plants for
manufacturing zip fasteners (metallic and non-metallic) with
hundred per cent own capital investment with no export
obligation. On consideration of this proposal the FIPB
forwarded the same with its recommendation to the Central
Government. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of
India, Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Policy
and Promotion vide its letter dated 7th July, 1995
communicated the approval on behalf of the Government of
India to YKK. Accordingly, YKK through its subsidiary
company m/s YKK Zippers, Singapore (p) Ltd., the third
respondent set up integrated plants at Bawal in Haryana.
(2) The petitioners claiming to be the members of various
trade unions operating in the companies engaged in
manufacture of zip fasteners have filed this Writ Petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking
mandamus to quash the permission granted to YKK for setting
up "INTEGRATED PLANTS" for manufacturing metallic and
non-metallic zip fasteners in India. In addition to this
prayer, a Writ of Mandamus is also sought to set aside the
Notification No.S.O. 309(E) dated 30th May, 1986 and for
declaration that new industrial policy of 1991 is in
violation of the Industries (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1951 (for short ’the Act’). First respondent is the
Union of India and the second respondent is Foreign
Investment Pormotion Board (FIPB).
(3) It is alleged by the petitioners that zip fasteners and
its components were being manufactured in India since 1949.
eversince 1971 the manufacturing of zip fasteners has been
reserved exclusively for the small scale sector. Zip
fasteners are broadly classified into two categories,
metallic and non-metallic zip fasteners. It is undisputed
that the zip fastener is the final product of various
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
components. There are about 150 small scale units in India
engaging over 45,000 workers in the manufacturing process of
various components for the end product i.e. zip fastener.
Most of these manufacturers fall within the parameters of
small scale industry. These manufacturers after putting
their hard work and on obtaining knowhow have been
manufacturing the zip fasteners and successfully competing
with the international market of zip fasteners. They have
been supplying zip fasteners to the manufacturers of
readymade garments, leather garments and allied articles.
As of today the High technology used by these manufacturers
in successfully competing the world market and earning
valuable foreign exchange for India. Notwithstanding this
factual position the reservation contained in Section 29-B
(2) (2B) read with item 38 (3) in the First Schedule of the
Act, the Central Government dereserved this item providing
exception in case of integrated plant - manufacturing zip
fasteners (metallic and non-metallic) by violating the said
provisions of the Act and extending favourable treatment to
the foreign investor for extraneous consideration. The
action of the Central Government is illegal and be quashed.
(4) Before we deal with the contentions raised on behalf of
the petitioners it may not be out of place to mention
certain other proceedings in which an identical challenge
was made to the Notification No. S.O. 309 (E) dated 30th
May, 1986 as also to the new industrial policy in Bombay and
Delhi High Courts. Writ Petition No.1987/1986 was filed in
the Bombay High Court challenging the validity of
Notification No.S.O. No.309(3) dated 30th May, 1986 issued
under Section 29(B)(2)(2B) of the Act. This writ petition
was filed by three petitioners, namely, (1) Zipper India
Pvt. Ltd., (2) Kishore J. Vora; and (3) Zipper Association
of India. Of course to this writ petition YKK could not be
a party as it got the approval to start its integrated plant
on 7.7.1995. Learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court
upheld the Notification No.S.O.No.309(3) dated May 30, 1986
and dismissed the writ petition. Appeal No.220 of 1988
filed on behalf of unsuccessful writ petitioners was
dismissed by the Division Bench by its judgement and order
dated February 28, 1997. The Special Leave Petition was
allowed to be withdrawn by this Court.
(5) Zipper Association of India than filed Civil Writ
Petition No. 3297 of 1975 in the High Court of Delhi, at
New Delhi under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
challenging the New Industrial Policy, 1991 and office
Memorandum No.9(90)/91-FC (1) dated 22.8.1991. There was
also a challenge to the Notification No.309/E dated
30.05.1986. In these proceedings respondent Nos.3 and 4
were arrayed as respondents. The High Court of Delhi vide
its judgement and order dated 1.7.1996 dismissed the writ
petition. Special Leave Petition (C) No.1952 of 1996 was
also dismissed by this Court on 15.7.1997. The present Writ
Petition was filed on September 23, 1996 under Art.32 of the
Constitution of India by Zippers karamchari Union and it was
tagged and heard along with Special Leave Petition. This
Court by its order dated 12.8.1997 admitted Writ Petition
for final disposal but dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
It is in this backdrop we have to examine various challenges
led by the petitioners in this Writ Petition. The third and
fourth respondent are thus required to face the second round
of litigation in this Court at the instance of Zippers
Karamchari Union.
(6) Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel appearing in
support of this Writ Petition urged that eversince 1973 the
policy of the Central Government was to promote small scale
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
industries as reflected in the Notification dated 16.2.1973
wherein 53 industries were exclusively reserved for the
small scale sector which included zip fastener industry.
This policy underwent various changes from time to time but
zip fastener industry remained untouched. However, the
Notification dated 30.05.1986 brought about a change making
an exception in respect of integrated plant manufacturing
zip fasteners vide Notification No.S.O.309 dated 30.5.1986.
It is under this notification YKK was granted permission to
set up an integrated plant in India. This approval granted
by the 1st respondent (Union of India) is ultra virus the
provisions of Section 29-B(2B) of the Act To supplement this
submission he relied upon the provisions of Section 29-B
(2B) of the Act which read as under:-
29-B Power to exempt in special cases:- (1) If the
Central Government is of opinion, having regard to
the smallness of the number of workers employed or
to the amount invested in any industrial undertaking
or to the desirability of encouraging small
undertakings generally or to the stage of
development of any scheduled industry, that it would
not be in public interest to apply all or any of the
provisions of the Act thereto, it may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, exempt,
subject to such conditions as it may think fit to
impose, any industrial undertaking or class of
industrial undertakings or any scheduled industry or
class of scheduled industries as it may specify in
the notification from the operation or all or any of
the provision of this Act or any rule or order made
thereunder.
(2B) The Central Government shall, with a view to
determining the nature of any article or class of
articles that may be reserved for production by the
ancillary, or small scale industrial undertakings,
constitute an Advisory Committee consisting of such
persons as have, in the opinion of that Government,
the necessary expertise to give advice on the
matter.
Item 38 in Schedule 1 reads thus:
1................,
2................; and
(7) The reading of the above provisions and Entry 38 in
Schedule, the Legislature’s intent is quite clear that the
zip fasteners (metallic and non-metallic) were reserved for
small scale industry under Section 29-B(2B) read with Entry
38(3) in the Schedule of the Act. But however, the Central
Government may constitute an Advisory Committee consisting
of such persons as have in the opinion of the Government
necessary expertise to give advice on that matter. The
question that needs to be considered is as to whether the
Notification dated 30.5.1986 issued under the Act is valid
and sustain role. The relevant portion of the said
Notification reads as under:-
Against Sl.No.148, for the entries in the second and
third columns, the following shall be substitute
namely:-
"30391301 Zip fasteners non-metallic except in the
case of integrated plants manufacturing all
components".
Against Sl.No.387, for the entries in the second and
third columns, the following shall be sustituted,
namely:-
"34090601 Zip Fasteners metallic except in the case
of integrated plant manufacturing all components".
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
(8) From the preamble of the notification itself, it is
quite clear that in view of the recommendations made by the
Advisory Committee constituted under sub-section 2-B of
Section 29(B) of the Act, the Government of India dereserved
the integrated plant manufacturing all components. The
concept of integrated plant is well known in the business
circle to mean that all components needed for the end
product are manufactured under one roof.
(9) Mr. shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel urged that
under Section 29-B (2B) of the Act, the Central Government
thought it fit to reserve Zip Fasteners (Metallic and
Non-Metallic) industry under Item 38 of Schedule I for small
scale industry. Any change in the policy of dereservation
by notification would be illegal and ultra vires Section
29-B(2B) of the Act. In our considered view, the rigidity
of such a construction to section 29-B(2B) would not promote
the object and spirit underlying the said section. The
industry engaged in manufacture of zip fasteners (metallic
and non-metallic) still continues to be in the province of
small scale industry. The Notification dated May 30, 1986
however, dereserved only an integrated plant.
(10) It is, therefore, quite clear that even today
manufacturing of zip fastener (metallic and non-metallic)
would continue to be a small scale industry. What has been
dereserved in an integrated plant. It is taken out from the
purview of small scale industry. This change was made on the
basis of the recommendation of the Advisory Committee
constituted under sub-section 2(B) of Section 29-B of the
Act.
(11) A very identical question was raised before the Bombay
High Court in Appeal No. 220 of 1988 decided on February
28, 1991 by the Division Bench. The Report of the Advisory
committee was also tendered before the said court. The
Bombay High Court reproduced a passage from the Report of
the Advisory Committee which reads as under:-
"Although there are some units in the small scale
sector, most of these are small in operation and
they do not carry out all the operations in-house.
This has resulted in indifferent quality. Smuggling
of zip fasteners is taking place on a very large
scale. Much of the technology is in the machines
itself which has been developed by the manufacturers
of zip-fasteners. An integrated unit for manufacture
of components in-house to ensure high quality will
require large investment, with which it is possible
to get specially foreign collaboration."
(12) The Advisory Committee therefore, made recommendations
to the Central Government which thought it fit to accept the
same and consequently the Notification came to be issued on
May 30, 1986.
(13) The Bombay High Court after considering the ambit of
sub-section (2B) of Section 29-B and Sections 10, 11, 11-A
and 13 of the Act held that the Notification dated 30th May,
1986 was not violative of any of the provisions of the Act.
This dereservation is holding the field since then.
(14) It was then contended by Mr. Shanti Bhushan, Learned
Senior Counsel that the Notification dated may 30, 1986
issued by the Central Government is arbitrary, irrational
and discriminatory. This Notification has brought about an
artificial classification in the small scale units and an
integrated plant which is violative of Guarantee of Equality
contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The
said Notification is totally detrimental to the small scale
units which are manufacturing zip-fasteners (metallic and
non-metallic). In our considered view, there is no
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
substance in this submission because the integrated plant is
a class by itself and totally different from the small scale
industry which is engaged in manufacturing zip fasteners
metallic and non-metallic. The submission raised on behalf
of the petitioner must, therefore, fail.
(15) There is also another aspect which needs to be
considered in the light of the expanding market of readymade
garments, leather garments and other articles where zip
fasteners metallic and non-metallic are used. Since 1983,
the export of these goods gaining a good support in the
international market and naturally if India wants to compete
with other countries engaged in the said business will have
to improve upon the quality of its goods. In 1983, the
Directorate General of technical Development, Government of
India and appointed a study team and the said team was
entrusted with the work of finding out asto (1) whether
small scale units manufacturing zip fasteners (metallic and
non-metallic) have necessary machinery for the manufacture
of zip colla/teeth or they are simply importing zip chain
and components and assembling the same into finished zips;
and (2) the quality of indigenous zips vis-a-vis the
imported ones. The quality of indigenous zip fasteners
would be an important factor. The study team during its
survey found that zip fasteners were smuggled into India on
large scale and they were being used by the manufacturers of
readymade garments and leather garments and other allied
articles. The Government of India accepted the report of
the said study team and with a view to have quality zip
fasteners (metallic and non-metallic) and in order to
compete with the would market and also to generate
employment in the field of readymade garments and leather
industry, it thought fit to dereserve an integrated plant
manufacturing zip fasteners. The object seems to be that
all components of zip fasteners if manufactured in an
integrated plant, the same will have a quality control which
will compete with the world market in that behalf. It is in
these circumstances we are of the considered opinion that
the Notification dated May 30, 1986 is neither illegal,
irrational nor discriminatory.
(16) It was then contended by Mr. Shanti Bhushan, Learned
Senior Counsel that the integrated plant of YKK owns hundred
percent equity capital of foreign national without any
corresponding export obligation. The manufacture of zip
fasteners (metallic and non-metallic) does not require
access to high technology and world markets and if this be
so, the Central Government had committed a serious
illegality while permitting YKK to set up an integrated
plant for manufacturing zip fasteners (metallic and
non-metallic) with its hundred percent equity capital
without any export obligation. He submitted that grant of
such permission to YKK would mean that they can expand the
industry as they like. They could also use the sophisticated
machinery where minimal labour is needed. The production
would be on huge scale and resultantly thousands of
labourers engaged in the small scale units in manufacturing
zip fasteners (metallic and non-metallic) would be rendered
jobless and that is how the petitioner would be vitally
affected in a very immediate near future. In a social
welfare state and particularly India being a developing
country when labour is available in abundance who are
equally competent to meet the needs of the country in
producing zip fasteners (metallic and non-metallic), their
talent will go waste and they would be rendered jobless. He,
therefore , urged that the Notification dated May 30, 1986
must be struck down. To supplement this submission, he drew
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
our attention to the statement on Industrial Policy of
Government of India and in particular paragraph 30-B (I),
(III) and (V) which read as under:-
"(I) Approval will be given for direct foreign
investment up to 51 percent foreign equity in high
priority industries (annexure III). There shall be
no bottlenecks of any kind in this process. Subh
clearance will be available if foreign equity covers
the foreign exchange requirement for imported
capital goods. Consequential amendments to the
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, shall be
carried out.
(II) xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxx
(III) Other foreign equity proposals, including
proposal involving 51 percent foreign equity which
do not meet the criteria under (i) above, will
continue to need prior clearance. Foreign equity
proposals need not necessarily be accompanied by
foreign technology agreements.
(IV) xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx
(V) A specially empowered Board would be
constituted to negotiate with a number of large
international firms and to approve direct foreign
investment in select areas. This would be a special
programme to attract substantial investment that
would provide access to high technology and would
markets. The investment programmes of such firms
would be considered in totality free from
pre-determined parameters or procedures".
(17) Relying upon this policy statement, Mr. Shanti Bhushan
urged that government policy is to promote 51% equity share
holding by the foreign companies/nationals that too in a
field where it would provide access to high technology and
world markets. According to learned counsel, there is
nothing on the record to indicate that the government while
granting permission to YKK to set up an integrated plant for
manufacturing zip fasteners (metallic and non-metallic) had
considered that an integrated plant would be such which
"would provide access to high technology and world markets".
The integrated plant for manufacture of zip fasteners
(metallic and non-metallic) does not involve an access to
high technology and would markets. If this be so, Counsel
urged that the above policy statement on Industrial Policy.
He however, conceded that expression and used in Clause V
"............. access to high technology and world markets"
could be read as ’or’ yet the approval granted to YKK to
start integrated plant for manufacture of zip fasteners
(metallic and non-metallic) would be totally opposed to the
Industrial Policy of Government of India. This submission
again does not appeal to us. Because it has come on the
record that YKK has acquired a world wide reputation in the
manufacture of zip fasteners (metallic and non-metallic).
Mr. Hiroshi Mitani, Managing Director of 4ht respondent in
his affidavit dated July 31, 1997 has highlighted the
salient features of YKK corporation in the field of
manufacturing zip fasteners all over the world. It is
stated "YKK have the would richest variety of items which
are required by customers. YKK Zippers are produced by
using high technology. The chart prepared with the nucleus
technology along with new technology is annexed as Annexure
"B". In paragraph 14, it is stated "a large number of
Indian exporters, manufacturers etc. are already using
Zippers made by YKK to meet the standard required in
International Market. In the domestic market a number of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
conter-feit zip fasteners bearing the brand YKK have
appeared and are in circulation for which the answering
respondent has instituted the suit for perpetial injunction,
infringement of trade marks, passing off and Rendition of
Account etc. which shows that the product manufactured by
YKK is in demand in India. We wish to state that
counterfeiting of YKK brand in India is rampant many
international burers specify use of YKK zippers. Many of
them have had their own brand names damaged due to supply of
garments with counterfiet Zippers from India and are
becoming wary of sourcing such garments from Indian
suppliers."
(18) After giving our careful thought to the pleadings of
the parties before us, we are of the considered opinion that
having regard to the quality and worldwise reputation
carried by YKK zip fasteners, it would be reasonable to
include that it would provide access to the world market
which is indicated in the statement on Industrial Policy in
paragraph V sub clause V quoted hereinabove.
(19) Mr. Nariman, learned Senior Counsel urged that the
integrated plant which has already been set up by YKK
through its subsidiary company, the third and 4th respondent
at Bawal in Haryana is highly sophisticated plant involving
high technology. He also urged that the third respondent
the subsidiary of YKK corporation, Japan being would leaders
in zip fasteners have acquired high reputation because of
use of the high technology used in their integrated plant
for manufacture of metallic and non-metallic zip fasteners.
Having considered the pleadings of the parties before us we
are of the firm opinion that having regard to the quality
and worldwide reputation earned by YKK zip fasteners, it
would not be out of place to mention that it would provide
access to the world market which is indicated in the
Statement on Industrial Policy in paragraph 39 Clause V
quoted hereinabove. Consequently we hold that approval
granted to YKK is neither illegal non contrary to the
Industrial Policy, 1991.
(20) Coming to the other limb of the argument of Mr. Shanti Bhushan Learn
ed
Senior Counsel that many workers of the present petitioner association wou
ld be
rendered jobless has also no force. We are told that as of today, there a
re as
many as 17 Indian companies which have been granted licences and are outsi
de
the purview of small scale units. This statement appearing in the affidav
it of
Shri Hiroshi Metani in paragraph 12 is contested on behalf of the petition
ers
contending that many of these Indian companies have been rendered
non-functional because of variety of reasons. But, however, the fact rema
ins
that some of the Indian companies have started integrated plants for
manufacture of metallic and non-metallic zip fasteners, Whether they are
successful in their attempt Orr not is really not a devisive factor. In t
his
behalf, it is really not a decisive factor. In this behalf, it is also
necessary to highlight the ratio between the production and requirement of
zip
fasteners (metallic and non-metallic) in India. In paragraph 7, Shri Hiro
shi
Mitani has stated that in 1997, the production of YKK was 2.2 corer pieces
.
The said figure was calculated on the basis that Indian Market size is abo
ut
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
100 crore pieces. Therefore, YKK production was 2-3% of the Indian Market
in
the year 1997. In 1998 onwards the production of YKK is going to be 9.2 c
rore
pieces i.e. 9-10% of the local market. There is no effective denial to t
his
statement in the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioners and if this
fact
has any bearing upon the factual state of requirement, it is quite clear t
hat
yet a sizeable market is available to the Indian manufacturers and the
apprehension entertained by the petitioner appears to us a mere figment of
imagination.
(21) On 15th July 1997, when this Court heard this writ
petition for preliminary hearing, it observed as under:-
W.P. (C) No. 781/96.
"One of the submissions of the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that even according to the opinion
of the Minister of State, Industries Department as
contained in his Note dated 5/9/1995 (at pages
109-110 of the paperbook), entry to thee
multinational company should be allowed with a 75
per cent export commitment as is normally done in
clearing cases of 100 percent foreign equity where
relatively low technology is involved, this
condition should have been imposed on the respondent
company".
(22) Mr. Shanti Bhushan, Learned Senior Counsel urged that
non-imposition of condition of export commitment on YKK was
totally wrong, irrational and contrary to thee note
submitted by the Minister of State while allowing entry to
the multi national company in India. A strong reliance was
sought to be placed by Mr. Shanti Bhushan on the note of
Minister of State dated 5th September, 1995 which reads
thus:-
"Secretary’s point that YKK would help domestic
readymade garment industry is valid. It is quite
clear that YKK was allowed primarily as a result of
Ministry of Textiles intervention in emphasizing the
need to supply an internationally acceptable brand
for the export oriented Ready Made Garment Industry.
This objective could be better served if YKK is
allowed entry with a 75% export commitment as is
normally done in clearing cases of 100% foreign
equity where relatively low technology is involved.
YKK could supply to domestic readymade garment units
against their advance licences on a deemed export
basis. In no circumstances should we permit the
decimation of thee small scale sector in a low
technology/low priority industry. It is therefore,
recommended, that permission to YKK be amended to
include a 75% export commitment."
(23) Admittedly, YKK was granted permission to set up
integrated plant for manufacture by the Government of India
on 7th July, 1995. It is thus clear that the note of the
Minister of State is dated 5th September, 1995 after the
permission was granted to YKK. The question is what is the
effect of such a note. Shri Om Prakash, Deputy Secretary to
the Government of India. Ministry of Industry, in his
affidavit has stated:
"........... A copy of a note allegedly signed by
the then Minister of State for Industry, dated
5-9-1995 has been filed from which it appears that
Shri M.Arunachalam on 5-9-1995 as the then Minister
of State for Industry had recommended that the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
permission granted to MS. YKK Corporation be
amended to include a 75% export commitment. In this
connection, I submit that the file in which this
note is said to have been written by the then
Minister of State for Industry is not available in
the concerned office, i.e. Office of the
Development Commissioner for Small Scale Industries.
I am making this submission on the basis of
communication No. 9(10)/95-Chem. dated 22-7-1997
from the office of the Development Commissioner for
Small Scale Industries."
(24) He further stated that the Industry Minister is a
cabinet rank minister and a note made by the Minister of
State can only be his viewpoint/recommendation to the
Industry Minister who has to take a final decision on such
recommendation. The grant of approval to MS YKK Corporation
with the approval of the Empowered committee on foreign
investment under the Chairmanship of Finance Minister (Dr.
Manmohan Singh), preceded the said note of the then Minister
of State for Industry. The approval letter was issued on
7th July, 1995 and the note of the Minister of State was
made on 5th September, 1995. This note was considered in
the department of Industrial Policy and Promotion which is
the department dealing with the foreign investment violation
as well as matters relating to approval of foreign and
domestic investment. The department of Industrial Policy
and Promotion expressed the view that the approval granted
to MS YKK Corporation is in consenance with the notification
dated 25th July, 1991 incorporating the list of items
reserved for small scale sector. According to the
guidelines for the Foreign Investment Promotion Board issued
through press note No. 3(1997 series) dated 17th July,
1997, no conditions specific to the letter of approval
issued to a foreign investor would be changed or additional
condition be imposed subsequent to the issue of letter of
approval. The stand of the central government contained in
the affidavit in reply is that it would neither be desirable
nor legally permissible to prescribe 75% export obligation
on YKK. The industry Minister on 13th March, 1997 having
considered all aspects of the matters and the note of the
Department of International Policy and Promotion has granted
approval to YKK Corporation and did not impose any export
obligation on YKK.
(25) Mr. Vaidyanathan, Learned Addl. Solicitor General
appearing for the Union of India urged that since the said
note of the Minister of State dated 5th September, 1995 was
after letter of approval issued to the YKK corporation on
7th July, 1995 and that theere is no material on the record
to indicate that such a note was approved by the Minister of
Industry. He further stated that it would not be possible
to impose such a condition after a lapse of such a long
period. He, therefore, urged that no relief whatsoever
could be granted to the petitioner on the basis of the said
note.
(26) Mr. Nariman, Learned Senior Counseel urged that noting
made by the officer/Minister of State on the government file
cannot be used to alter the situation and, therefore, a
letter of approval granted to YKK Corporation on 7th July,
1995 cannot be varied. In support of his submission, he
drew our attention to the decision of this Court in State of
Bihar etc. etc. Vs. Kripalu Shanker etc. etc. 1987 (3)
SCR 1. In our considered view, it would not be possible to
direct the first respondent to impose the condition in tune
with the note dated 5th September, 1995 made by the Minister
of State. The Minister of the cabinet rank holding the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
protfolio of Industry has granted the approval to YKK
Corporation on 7th July, 1995. It is a matter of government
policy and in our opinion no sustainable ground was urged
before us to hold that the approval granted to YKK was
contrary to the government policy. The Court would not be
justified in inter ering in such matters when it is
satisfied that a grant of approval to YKK was neither
irrational, non for any extraneous consideration.
Incidentally, it may also be mentioned that the third and
fourth respondent have commenced the production of zippers
in their factory at Bawal, Haryana on 21st March, 1997 with
the investment of 90 crores. Any change in the terms and
conditions of the approval at this stage may lead to several
legal complications.
(27) For the foregoing conclusions, we are of the
considered view that the petitioner has made out no case for
grant of any of the reliefs claimed in this petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition
is thus devoid of any merit. The Writ Petition, therefore,
stands dismissed. In the cirrcumstances of the case, parties
are directed to bear their own costs.
(28) When I circulated my draft judgment for approval to
Brother Rajendra Babu, J., he agreed with my judgment. But,
however, he has given a separate concurring judgment to
which both of us agree.
END.