Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : This writ petition by petitioner-Sangam for a mandamus to direct the respondents to include equal number of representatives from powerloom sector in the Advisory Committee, constituted by the 1st respondent in Notification dated 18-8-1993 issued under S. 4 of Handloom (Reservation of Articles for production) Act, 1985 (Central Act 22 of 1985). 2. According to the supporting affidavit there are only the person from powerloom sector in the abovesaid Advisory Committee out of the total 31 persons in the said Committee. According to the supporting affidavit, the said representation is very much inadequate. Learned counsel for the petitioner also presses the said point vehemently. But, I find that S. 4(1) of the said Act runs as follows:- "The Central Government with a view to determining the nature of any ariticle or class of articles that may be reserved for exclusive production by Handlooms, constitute an Advisory Committee consisting of such persons have, in the opinion of that Government, the necessary expertise to give advice on the matter." Thus, as per S. 4(1), it is not incumbent on the respondents to give representation to each of the sectors concerned, including the poweloom sector to which the petitioner-Sangam belongs. All that is required as per S. 4(l) is that the Advisory Committee should compose of persons of "necessary epertise to give advice on the matter", and, that too, they should be so, "in the opinion of the Central Government". 'Learned counsel for the petitioner no doubt submits that unless proper representation is there from the powerloom sector the interest of the powerloom sector could not be taken care of. I am unable to agree with this. When such experts become members of the Advisory Committee, they will certainly give necessary advice objectively, taking into consideration of all the sectors concerned. Further in view of the use of the words "in the opinion of", it is clear that the selection should be left to the subjective opinion of the Government, and it cannot be an opinion subject to objective test. The said term "in the opinion of" has been interpreted so by the Supreme Court in Lila Vati Bai v. Bombay State and Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board 1969 AIR(SC) 295). 2A. The said term "in the opinion of" has been interpreted so by the Supreme Court in Lila Vati Bai v. Bombay State and Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board 1969 AIR(SC) 295). 2A. Further the communication dated 24-12-1993 from Government of India, Ministry of Textiles to the President of the petitioner - Sangam (appearing at page 17 of the set says that the first meeting of the Advisory Committee constituted, was convened as early as 18-10-1993, that this said committee would make its recommendations to the Government on the nature of the articles that may be reserved for exclusive production by handlooms and that the committee is likely to submit its report by the end of Feb 1994. It is also mentioned herein that as per the abovesaid Act, the said Advisory Committee is empowered to make recommendation on any change in the existing reserved item. When such progress has been made after the committee has been constituted and it is also stated that the report of the committee itself would come by the end of February, 1994 no direction can now be given at this stage, as prayed for in the writ petition. 3. Looking at from any angle, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.