Judgment :- AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Writ Appeals Nos. 963 to 965 of 1996 have been filed by the writ petitioners challenging the order of J. Kanakaraj, J., in W.M.P. Nos. 19540, 19541 and 28065 of 1995 in W.P. No. 12246 of 1995 dated 12-7-1996. 2. W.P. No. 12246 of 1995 has been filed by the appellants/petitioners for the following relief : To issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records comprised in the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 11-4-1995 in Lr. No. 14/1202/91/CSS/43 and of the 2nd respondent dated 19-7-1995 in Lr. No. 31/4/94 GTI and quash the same and consequently issue a mandamus directing the respondents to grant exemption to the petitioners in respect of hank yarn obligations which is the subject-matter of the Notification of the Textile Commissioner in CER/23/90/CLB dated 29-3-1990. 3. Notice of motion was ordered by the First Bench of this Court in the Writ Appeals on 16-10-1996 and on service of notice, the respondents are represented by their Standing Counsel. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, all the Writ Appeals are admitted. W.P. No. 12246 of 1995 was also directed to be posted along with the Writ Appeals as the argument in both the cases will be the same. Accordingly, arguments were advanced by both parties in the main writ petition as well as in the writ appeals. 4. First, we take up the writ petition. The short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows :- By the order of the 1st respondent/Textile Commissioner dated 11-4-1995 and confirmed in appeal by the 2nd respondent/Union of India by order dated 19-7-1995, the respondents have rejected the request of the petitioners for grant of exemption to the petitioners in respect of Hank Yarn Obligation prescribed under the Notification No. CER/23/90/CLB dated 29-3-1990 of the 1st respondent. According to the petitioners, the respondents have rejected the request of the petitioners in an arbitrary manner without even adverting to the directions of a Division Bench of this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners in W.P. No. 12765 of 1994 dated 21-2-1995. 5. The 1st petitioner was carrying on textile spinning activities by employing more than 400 workers. 5. The 1st petitioner was carrying on textile spinning activities by employing more than 400 workers. Its operations had come to a grinding halt in the year 1983 mainly in view of the fact that the labour productivity was low and the machineries used by the petitioners were out-dated. Even though the then promoters infused Rs. 3 crores, the 1st petitioner company could not be revived and became a sick company facing acute shortage of resources. As on 31-12-1989, the accumulated liabilities of the 1st petitioner was to an extent of Rs. 6 crores. Considering the plight of the petitioners, the Government of Tamil Nadu interfered and wanted to revive the 1st petitioner from its sufferings. By virtue of this, a memorandum of understanding was entered into between the management of the 1st petitioner and the workmen before the Joint Commissioner of Labour on 30-4-1987. The said memorandum of understanding provided for abolition of the reeling department which produced hank yarn because this department was very uneconomical, and that the workers had agreed to receive consolidated wages during the period of rehabilitation for ten years. 6. The petitioners had moved the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as BIFR), which declared the 1st petitioner as a sick industrial company by its order dated 20-6-1988 and also appointed the Industrial Development Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as IDBI) as the operating agency under Section 17(3) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special) Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for preparing a scheme for revival/rehabilitation. The IDBI submitted its proposals on 22-12-1987 and ultimately BIFR proceeded to pass an order on 20-6-1988 by recording its opinion that the 1st petitioner company should be wound up in view of the fact that there was no scope for substantial induction of interest free funds amounting to Rs. 7 crores, without which the 1st petitioner cannot be made viable, that the workers had to come forward with more sacrifices; that the financial institutions and banks and also the Government would have to extend more concessions/reliefs and as there was no response from these angles, the BIFR proceeded to pass an order for winding up of the 1st petitioner company on 20-6-1988. 7. 7. The 1st petitioner being aggrieved against the said order, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as AAIFR) in Appeal No. 13/1988 and the same was admitted on 10-8-1988. In the meanwhile, the then promoters of the 1st petitioner company also proposed to the Government of Tamil Nadu and the workers a scheme for reconstruction and on the basis of the said scheme, a memorandum of understanding dated 23-2-1990 was also entered into between the management and the workers before the Joint Commissioner of Labour. However, AAIFR after taking into account various aspects, proceeded to sanction a scheme for rehabilitation of the 1st petitioner company by its order dated 15-6-1990. The AAIFR, before sanctioning the scheme, by its order dated 4-5-1990, directed circulation of the draft scheme to various parties including the Central Government indicating that the Central Government was free to raise objections within two months. Only after following the requisite procedures by wide circulation of the draft scheme to all concerned including the Central Government, the AAIFR had sanctioned the rehabilitation scheme by order dated 15-6-1990. The rehabilitation scheme in Part B of the order of AAIFR listed various assurance given for favourable consideration for grant of certain reliefs, with which we are not presently concerned. However, in Part B sub-para (4), a reference was made to the exemption from hank yarn obligation, which was yet to be approved by the concerned authority, and that the operating agency/implementing agency and the appellate company would take appropriate steps in this behalf and that the final reliefs/concessions extended on this account shall form part of the final sanctioned scheme. 8. It is contended by Mr. Mohan Parasaran, that in view of the facts mentioned above, the concerned authorities viz., respondents 1 and 2, ought to have favourably considered the case of the petitioners for grant of exemption from hank yarn obligation, which was imposed by the 1st respondent by virtue of the power conferred on him under Clause 16 of the Textile Control Order, 1986, by notification dated 29-3-1990. In other words, in sum and substance, it was mandated by the 1st respondent that every producer of yarn shall pack yarn for civil consumption in hank yarn form in each half-yearly period commencing from April-September, 1990 and in every subsequent half yearly period in proportion of not less than fifty per cent of total yarn packed by him during such half yearly period for civil consumption. The scheme imposing hank yarn obligation has been modified with effect from 1-4-1995 also bringing within its fold of hank yarn obligation the hosiery yarn and sewing thread. 9. It is further contended by Mr. Mohan Parasaran, that the obligation imposed in respect of packing in hank yarn form, as imposed in the notification aforesaid, would be applicable to the 1st petitioner company and if it was enforced, the 1st petitioner company would be greatly and severely prejudiced vitally affecting its rehabilitation, as complying with hank yarn obligation would obviously entail the 1st petitioner to an expenditure of Rs. 45,61,550-25 up to 31-3-1995 and from 1-4-1995, an expected expenditure of Rs. 49,50,000/- per annum. As the 1st petitioner company was already having huge accumulated losses, if it was made to comply with the hank yarn obligation also, according to Mr. Mohan Parasaran, it would adversely affect its rehabilitation package and inasmuch as the IDBI had proceeded on the assumption that the 1st petitioner would be having exemption and accordingly have prepared the rehabilitation package, non-granting of exemption would seriously affect the rehabilitation package/scheme as sanctioned by the AAIFR, which was sanctioned after due notice to the Central Government. 10. Based on the directions as contained in the sanctioned scheme of the AAIFR, the 1st petitioner applied to the 1st respondent for exemption from hank yarn obligation. However, the 1st respondent by letter dated 20-8-1992 rejected the request of the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner again made representation to the 1st respondent on 1-9-1993 and 9-11-1993 requesting him to reconsider his order dated 20-8-1992. The 1st respondent by his letter dated 14-1-1994 rejected the request of the 1st petitioner. Being aggrieved against the order of the 1st respondent, the 1st petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent. The petitioners also filed W.P. No. 12765 of 1994 before this Court challenging the order of the 1st respondent rejecting the request of the petitioners for grant of exemption from hank yarn obligation. Being aggrieved against the order of the 1st respondent, the 1st petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent. The petitioners also filed W.P. No. 12765 of 1994 before this Court challenging the order of the 1st respondent rejecting the request of the petitioners for grant of exemption from hank yarn obligation. This Court admitted the writ petition and also stayed the operation of the orders of the 1st respondent impugned in the writ petition as a result of which the appeal, which was pending before the 2nd respondent, was not taken up and was adjourned till the outcome of the writ petition. 11. W.P. No. 12765 of 1994 was taken up by a Division Bench of this Court and the Bench by order dated 21-2-1995 allowed the writ petition of the petitioners and quashed the order of the 1st respondent, observing as under : "We are of the view that the said order cannot be construed to be a speaking order, as the textile industry in question has been declared to be a sick company under the Act. The Textile Commissioner has to consider the request of the petitioner in the background of the fact that the petitioner mill has been declared as a sick industry and a scheme has also been framed. Having regard to the provisions contained in the scheme, as the order does not contain any reason nor is it possible to infer from the order that all the facts having bearing on the hardship that would be caused to the petitioner, if it were to comply with the hank yarn obligation have been considered, we are of the view that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the Textile Commissioner. In this view of the matter the writ petitioner is allowed. The order dated 14-1-1994 passed by the Textile Commissioner is quashed. The Textile Commissioner is directed to reconsider the matter afresh and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It is also open to the petitioner to place such of those records and materials as are relevant for the purpose of the relief sought for by the petitioner. The petitioner shall place such records/materials on or before 15-3-1995 and the Textile Commissioner shall decide the issue within one month from 15-3-1995." * 12. It is also open to the petitioner to place such of those records and materials as are relevant for the purpose of the relief sought for by the petitioner. The petitioner shall place such records/materials on or before 15-3-1995 and the Textile Commissioner shall decide the issue within one month from 15-3-1995." * 12. In view of the above directions of the Division Bench, the 1st petitioner made a representation to the 1st respondent on 9-3-1995 for review/reconsideration. It was pointed out that the company is likely to incur an expenditure of Rs. 49.5 lakhs per annum in order to fulfil the hank yarn obligation in addition to a sum of Rs. 45,61,550-25 to be incurred on the arrears of obligation up to 31-3-1995, which were beyond the means of the 1st petitioner, which was a sick industrial undertaking. It was also pointed out that in similar situations like the one, the 1st respondent himself has exempted certain textile undertakings such as National Textile Corporation, which was a sick company in respect of hank yarn obligation. The 1st respondent reiterated his own earlier decision and once again rejected the request of the 1st petitioner for grant of exemption on the ground that the Supreme Court of India had upheld the validity of the hank yarn obligation which was imposed in public interest and in the interest of handloom industry in Civil Appeal Nos. 1334 to 1345 of 1993 dated 17-3-1993. 13. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent, who heard the petitioners through its agent on 5-7-1995, dismissed the appeal. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order of the 2nd respondent also proceeded on an erroneous assumption that inasmuch as the Central Government was not a party to the scheme of the AAIFR, it cannot be assumed that there was any duty imposed upon the Central Government to grant exemption or any assurance given by the Central Government. Aggrieved by the orders of respondents 1 and 2, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition to quash the orders of the respondents and to consequently direct the respondents to grant exemption to the petitioner in respect of hank yarn obligation, which is the subject-matter of the notification of the 1st respondent dated 29-3-1990. 14. Mr. Aggrieved by the orders of respondents 1 and 2, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition to quash the orders of the respondents and to consequently direct the respondents to grant exemption to the petitioner in respect of hank yarn obligation, which is the subject-matter of the notification of the 1st respondent dated 29-3-1990. 14. Mr. Mohan Parasaran contended as follows : (a) Packing of 50% of the obligatory variety of yarn delivered for civil consumption in hank form should entail in financial burden on a mill which had abolished the reeling department manufacturing hank yarn with the consent of workers and the State Government as the running of this department was unviable. Both the authorities have failed to take into account the submission of the petitioners that up to 31-3-1995, the additional financial burden would be Rs. 45,61,550.25 and from 1-4-1995, the additional financial burden every year was likely to be Rs. 49.5 lakhs per annum. (b) The 1st respondent has failed to take into account the recommendations of the IDBI for favourable consideration of the Central Government, which had been recommending grant of exemption and also failed to take into account that the Central Government was duly intimated about the draft scheme. In fact, no objection was given by the Central Government in respect of the recommendations of the operating agency. (c) The finding of the 1st respondent that the hank yarn obligation is not a liability comparable to discharge of a loan or payment of a tax but it is only a packing of 50% of obligatory variety of yarn in a form which is used by the handloom sector, is also erroneous. (d) The grant of exemption from the hank yarn obligation itself is a part of the statutory duty under the Textile Control Order, 1986, as it originally stood, and even under the present Textile (Development and Regulation) Order, 1992, which squarely applies. (e) The petitioner was admittedly a sick industry, which was in the process of rehabilitation after having faced a closure in the year 1983 when its losses stood accumulated over Rs. 3 crores and in 1989, the accumulated losses stood over Rs. 6 crores. Even though the 1st petitioner had started earning for the years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95, still the accumulated losses as on 31-3-1995 was at Rs. 242.81 lakhs. 3 crores and in 1989, the accumulated losses stood over Rs. 6 crores. Even though the 1st petitioner had started earning for the years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95, still the accumulated losses as on 31-3-1995 was at Rs. 242.81 lakhs. In fact, the AAIFR, even in respect of sales tax had deferred payment of sales tax by virtually granting exemption and directed the payment of sales tax only after 2000 AD. The spirit behind the rehabilitation package is to somehow revive the sick company and if the 1st petitioner was made to comply with the hank yarn obligation, which is quite substantial , and if the 1st petitioner was forced to pay the same, such a condition would adversely affect the rehabilitation of the 1st petitioner and would also consequently affect the workers of the industry and would also go behind the very scheme framed under the Act, which has a greater public interest ramification than complying with the demand for hank yarn obligation in pursuance of the order of the 1st respondent, as confirmed by the 2nd respondent. (f) Likewise, the 2nd respondent has failed to advert to the fact that even though the 1st petitioner earned a net profit for the years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 of Rs. 25 lakhs, Rs. 95 lakhs and Rs. 75 lakhs respectively approximately, the accumulated losses as on 31-3-1995 was Rs. 242-81 lakhs. Therefore, the fact which remains is that still the accumulated losses are to be wiped out and that process is being slowly implemented because of the effective implementation of the rehabilitation scheme and if at this stage, the 1st petitioner is compelled to comply with hank yarn obligation, it would result in accumulated losses further increasing and further delaying the implementation and even probably frustrate the rehabilitation of the 1st petitioner company. 15. The writ petition was resisted by the respondents by filing a counter-affidavit. It is submitted by Mr. V. T. Gopalan, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, that no person can claim a right or an entitlement to get an exemption from the operation of the Textile Regulation Order, 1993. It is exactly for this reason that even while formulating the scheme, the AAIFR has left the question of exemption of hank yarn obligations to be decided by the appropriate authority and that such a decision shall form part of the scheme. It is exactly for this reason that even while formulating the scheme, the AAIFR has left the question of exemption of hank yarn obligations to be decided by the appropriate authority and that such a decision shall form part of the scheme. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court dated 21-2-1995, the 1st respondent, after carefully going through the appeal petition filed before him and also after hearing the representation of the petitioners, has passed a well reasoned order, which, according to Mr. V. T. Gopalan, is unexceptionable on the face of the reasons given therein. It is further submitted that the conclusions reached by the statutory functionaries are factual and this Court may not be pleased to interfere with such factual conclusions in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The hank yarn obligation, according to Mr. V. T. Gopalan, is not a liability comparable to discharge of a loan or payment of a tax, but it is only a packing of 50% of obligatory variety of yarn in a form which is used by the handloom sector. Mr. V. T. Gopalan would submit that if such a packing facility is not there with a mill, such a mill can either transfer its obligation to another mill having excess hank yarn packing or may get the reeling done by another producer having reeling facility, with the permission of the Central Excise authorities through State Handloom Corporations or Apex Corporation Co-operation Organisations nominated for the purpose by the concerned State Government or Union Territory Administration as the case may be, in the area having concentration of handloom weavers and produce a certificate in the prescribed format to the concerned regional office of the Textile Commissioner along with the quarterly statement for the period. 16. Mr. V. T. Gopalan submitted that the statement made by the 1st petitioner that the respondents failed to take into account the submissions of the 1st petitioner that up to 31-3-1995, the additional financial burden would be Rs. 45,61,550-25 and from 1-4-1995, the additional financial burden every year was likely to be Rs. 49.5 lakhs per annum was frivolous. In fact, the extra cost incurred for producing hank yarn is to a great extent set off by the duty concessions given to the hank yarn by the Central Government. 45,61,550-25 and from 1-4-1995, the additional financial burden every year was likely to be Rs. 49.5 lakhs per annum was frivolous. In fact, the extra cost incurred for producing hank yarn is to a great extent set off by the duty concessions given to the hank yarn by the Central Government. Similarly, for fulfilling the obligations by transfer to some other mills having excess hank yarn packing will not cost as high as Rs. 50 lakhs per annum as stated by the 1st petitioner. It is further submitted that the need to conform to the hank yarn obligation by all the textile mills has been succinctly set out by the Supreme Court in G.T.N. Textiles Ltd. v. Asst. Director. 17. After the Writ Appeals were filed and notice ordered, the respondents filed an additional counter-affidavit. Paragraph 2 of the additional counter-affidavit reads as follows : " The claim of the petitioner that he is required to spend additional expenditure of Rs. 49.5 lakhs per annum from 1-4-1995 to fulfil the hank yarn obligation is baseless and therefore denied. As per the quarterly hank yarn return filed by the petitioner, the quantity of hank yarn obligation required to be fulfilled by them for the past two years was only 1,89,208.5 Kgs. If the petitioner did not want to fulfil their obligation by their own packing of the abovesaid quantity in hank form they could have fulfilled the said obligation by transfer of their obligation to other producers having excess packing of hank yarn for the quarterly periods as permitted in the policy provisions. This may involve some expenditure on the part of the petitioner towards payment of some sort of premiums to the transferee mills. This premium is never official and always paid at the convenience of the transferor and transferee. The present premium as ascertained locally works at 90 paise per KG to Rs. 1.50 per KG of hank yarn obligation for transfer. It means an average expenditure would have been just Rs. 85,144/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum as against Rs. 49.5 lakhs claimed by the petitioner. Details of the obligations of the petitioner for the current notification period i.e., from 1-4-1995 onwards is as follows : Quarterly period Quantity of obligatory Variety packed in Kgs. Hank yarn obligation in Kgs. Obligation fulfilled Apr-June, 95 24,502 12,251 Nil July-Sep. 95 -- -- -- Oct-Dec. 95 4,150 2,075 Nil Jan-Mar. 49.5 lakhs claimed by the petitioner. Details of the obligations of the petitioner for the current notification period i.e., from 1-4-1995 onwards is as follows : Quarterly period Quantity of obligatory Variety packed in Kgs. Hank yarn obligation in Kgs. Obligation fulfilled Apr-June, 95 24,502 12,251 Nil July-Sep. 95 -- -- -- Oct-Dec. 95 4,150 2,075 Nil Jan-Mar. 96 11,753 5,877 -- Apr-June, 96 -- -- -- July-Sep. 96 1,52,381 76,191 -- Oct-Dec. 96 1,14,530 57,265 -- Jan-Mar. 97 71,099 35,549 -- Total 3,78,415 1,89,208 -- 18. It is also contended by Mr. V. T. Gopalan, that despite the orders of this Court for fulfilling the hank yarn obligation for the current period and that there was no stay given by the Court for the fulfilment of the social obligation in the interest of the poor handloom workers, the petitioner-mill has not bothered to fulfil during the current period. Since the mill has recovered from its temporary sickness, it would relieve the mills of the periodical expenses towards premium on account of hank yarn obligation transfers in case they put up reeling machine instead of cone winding machine on one time basis, which would cost Rs. 40,000/- but save expenseson account of periodic transfers and the mill is not bound to incur any additional manufacturing cost as they will be packing hanks instead of cones directly from the cops. 19. The petitioners filed a reply affidavit to the additional counter-affidavit denying the various averments contained therein. In the reply affidavit it is stated that the total daily production capacity of the 1st petitioner mill is 4,600 Kgs. The 1st petitioner mill works for 355 days in a year excluding 10 national and other mandatory holidays. The annual production on this basis works out to 16,33,000 Kgs. If this figure is taken into account, the obligation of the 1st petitioner to compulsorily pack the obligatory variety of yarn required to be packed would come to 8,16,500 Kgs. The 1st petitioner would submit that in view of the non-consideration by the respondents for the grant of exemption to the 1st petitioner from the hank yarn obligation, the 1st petitioner has been forced to resort to manufacturing of substantial portion of non-obligatory variety of hank yarn to the maximum extent possible. The 1st petitioner would submit that in view of the non-consideration by the respondents for the grant of exemption to the 1st petitioner from the hank yarn obligation, the 1st petitioner has been forced to resort to manufacturing of substantial portion of non-obligatory variety of hank yarn to the maximum extent possible. This has seriously made inroads into the profits which the 1st petitioner company would have otherwise made as profit, with the exemptions from complying with the hank yarn obligation, would have certainly helped the 1st petitioner company to a great extent. If the above factors are taken into account in the present case, the hank yarn obligations which varies from 1.50 to 3.00 Kg., the 1st petitioner will incur necessarily an additional expenditure of Rs. 24,49,500/- per annum than with the present state of affairs, which had existed over the years. 20. Mr. Mohan Parasaran further contended that in view of the refusal to grant exemption, the profit of the 1st petitioner has already been eroded to an extent of Rs. 30 lakhs per annum and that the 1st petitioner is not able to manufacture totally the obligatory variety of hank yarn and even with this restricted operations, the 1st petitioner will have to incur an additional expenditure of Rs. 24,49,500/- excluding the other losses. It is also contended that the 1st petitioner is not in a position to exercise the option of production of this variety to the maximum possible extent in view of the attitude of the respondents, who have completely ignored to take into account the interest and welfare of the 1st petitioner and the workers who are now sought to be rehabilitated. The respondents are completely oblivious of the fact that rehabilitation of hundreds of workers in the 1st petitioner mill has been solely possible pursuant to the rehabilitation scheme framed by the AAIFR and it is significant to point out that the 1st petitioner mill was ordered to be wound up by BFIR. 21. Mr. Mohan Parasaran further submitted that it was only at the instance of the AAIFR, the rehabilitation scheme was framed, which resulted in the rehabilitation of hundreds of workers who have been jobless and without wages for seven years between 1983 and 1990. According to Mr. 21. Mr. Mohan Parasaran further submitted that it was only at the instance of the AAIFR, the rehabilitation scheme was framed, which resulted in the rehabilitation of hundreds of workers who have been jobless and without wages for seven years between 1983 and 1990. According to Mr. Mohan Parasaran, it was the dominant intention behind the rehabilitation scheme as framed by the operating agencies IDBI and AAIFR, that the 1st petitioner should be granted with exemption from hank yarn obligations as would be evident from the draft rehabilitation scheme framed by IDBI, which is approved by the AAIFR after having invited objections from the affected parties. Mr. Mohan Parasaran also submitted that the respondents have completely forgotten the interest of the chronically sick industry like the 1st petitioner and on the other hand, have resorted to project the interest of handloom industry and failed to balance the interest of both parties in considering the case of exemption. It is also pointed out that the working cost of hank yarn obligation assuming that the 1st petitioner company produces only unexempted yarn caregories, according to Mr. Mohan Parasaran, is as follows : Daily average production 4,600 Kgs. Yearly production for 355 days (10 national and other holidays excluded) 16,33,000 Kgs. Cost of transfer of hank yarn obligation (premium) at Rs. 3/- per Kg. Rs.24,495 lakhs Opportunity loss (for manufacturing exempted variety) Rs. 30,000 lakhs Total Rs. 54.495 lakhs 22. Mr. Mohan Parasaran while strongly denying the averment of the respondents that the 1st petitioner mill has recovered from its sickness, submitted that the 1st petitioner mill was restarted on 22-8-1990 and from that date, its performance from the statistical point of view is as under : Year Profit in lacks Loss in ( ) Accumulated loss upto 31-3-1990 (Rs. 590-91) 1990-91 (Rs. 36.50) 1991-92 (Rs. 41.77) 1992-93 Rs. 22.95 1993-94 Rs. 89.31 1994-95 Rs. 71.10 1995-96 (Rs. 73.34) 1996-97 (Rs. 30.33) provisional Present accumulated loss (Rs. 346.47) (after deduction of concessions of interest, etc., amounting to Rs. 234.61 lakhs) 23. Placing reliance on the above figure, Mr. Mohan Parasaran submitted that it is transparent from the additional counter-affidavit that the respondents have completely misconceived the factual position and based on certain erroneous assumptions, have denied the 1st petitioner fair treatment. To the suggestion made by the respondents' counsel in regard to the introduction of reeling department, it is submitted by Mr. Mohan Parasaran submitted that it is transparent from the additional counter-affidavit that the respondents have completely misconceived the factual position and based on certain erroneous assumptions, have denied the 1st petitioner fair treatment. To the suggestion made by the respondents' counsel in regard to the introduction of reeling department, it is submitted by Mr. Mohan Parasaran, that the 1st petitioner's factory has been remodelled for rehabilitation and it is not possible to incur expenses for building extra space now for bank yarn winding/packing incurring enormous expenditure as mentioned above. 24. We have carefully considered the submissions made by either party. We are of the view that the impugned orders are perfectly valid and are not liable to be set aside. The Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1334 to 1343 of 1984 decided on 17-3-1993 has given elaborate reasons for upholding the notification imposing hank yarn obligation. Reference is also made to the fact that the Government have reinstituted the relaxation of getting hank yarn obligation fulfilled by transfer of surplus hank yarn packing of another producer. There is also provision for reeling hank yarn through another producer having extra reeling capacity. Sub-clause (4) of Clause 8 of the Textile (Development and Regulation) Order, 1993, provides for granting exemption in cases of undue hardship or difficulty to any manufacturers. All the authorities have examined the difficulties experienced by the 1st petitioner and put forward by it before them and found out that they are without substance. Above all, it is a policy matter enunciated by the Union of India for the interest and welfare of the handloom industry. In one of the orders impugned in the writ petition it was even suggested that the 1st petitioner could also get the company to be declared as a relief undertaking but the 1st petitioner is avoiding the same on the ground that it is a time consuming process. It is also pointed out and not in dispute that the 1st petitioner mill is now earning profit and there is no room for granting exemption. 25. A Division Bench of this Court in its earlier order while remitting the matter passed an order which also does not indicate that the 1st petitioner is entitled for the grant of exemption. The Division Bench has only directed the Textile Commissioner to consider the matter afresh. The argument of Mr. 25. A Division Bench of this Court in its earlier order while remitting the matter passed an order which also does not indicate that the 1st petitioner is entitled for the grant of exemption. The Division Bench has only directed the Textile Commissioner to consider the matter afresh. The argument of Mr. Mohan Parasaran that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1334 to 1343 of 1984 dated 17-3-1993 cannot be relied on by the respondents because it relates to the validity of the notification imposing hank yarn obligation is unacceptable. The Supreme Court while upholding the notification imposing hank yarn obligation, observed that it is in the interest of the general public and also in the larger interest of the textile industry. 26. It is true that we are concerned in this case with reference to a sick industrial undertaking governed by a rehabilitation scheme. In our view, the 1st petitioner company is not entitled to exemption on the grounds of hardship and difficulty. Of course, the Central Government may be directed to extend the time in order to enable the petitioners to comply with the notification issued by the 1st respondent in CER(23)/90 CLB dated 29-3-1990 issued under the Textile Control Order, 1986, as amended from time to time. 27. The argument of Mr. Mohan Parasaran that the 1st petitioner company has abolished the reeling department manufacturing hank yarn with the consent of the workers and the State Government as the running of this department was unviable, cannot be a ground for ignoring the hank yarn obligation imposed on all textile mills. We are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Mohan Parasaran that the respondents, who are empowered to grant exemption, have exercised their power arbitrarily. They have, for the reasons stated in their orders, refused to exercise their power. It is true that the spirit behind the rehabilitation package is to somehow revive the sick company. But, at the time, we cannot forget the hank yarn obligation imposed on the 1st petitioner and if the 1st petitioner has failed to perform its statutory obligation, such a conduct would affect the workers of the other industries and would also render the scheme framed by the Central Government in public interest purposeless. But, at the time, we cannot forget the hank yarn obligation imposed on the 1st petitioner and if the 1st petitioner has failed to perform its statutory obligation, such a conduct would affect the workers of the other industries and would also render the scheme framed by the Central Government in public interest purposeless. It is also a matter of record that even in the case of National Textile Corporation Mills, many of which are sick, the Government has not granted exemption as a policy despite their appeals. Many of the National Textile Corporation Mills, which are run under the Ministry itself as Govt. of India Undertakings/Enterprises are made to fulfil the hank yarn obligation, failing which they are also being treated on the same lines as that of other mills in terms of the Supreme Court orders. The principle underlying the above is that no individual mill or person's temporary sickness should weigh against the policy provisions protecting poor handloom weavers in this country. Just because the 1st petitioner mill was temporarily sick earlier and was brought up before BIFR, it should not be presumed that the 1st petitioner mill is a chronic sick mill or that it is sick forever. The temporary sickness of a mill should not be considered for a decision weighing against the Government policy protection given to the poor handlom weavers for supply of hank yarn, which would be the bread winner to them. Therefore, the 1st petitioner mill's posture of sickness for exemption from the hank yarn obligation scheme is totally devoid of merit. 28. For all the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the writ petition has no merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. In view of the reasons disclosed in the order in the writ petition, all the writ appeals, which are against interim orders passed pending the writ petition, are dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P. Nos. 14160 to 14162 of 1996 and W.M.P. Nos. 25138 to 25140 of 1996 are also dismissed as no longer necessary. However, there will be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.