Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : In these writ petitions the subject-matter involved and also the parties to the writ are one and the same, all these writ petitions were taken up together and are disposed of by this common order with the consent of the parties concerned. W.P. Nos. 12433 and 12434/90 have been filed seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondents herein relating to his order No. B.Pdl/6/89/26 dated 23-9-1989 (in W.P. No. 12433) and B.Pdo. 6/89(94) dated 24-10-1989 (in W.P. No. 12634) and to quash the respective orders and to direct the respondents to refund the sum of Rs. 6, 916/- and 7, 696/- respectively with interest. In W.P. No. 12435/90, the prayer is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondent herein relating to his order No. Pdl./6/89(8) dated 6-2-1990 and to qaush the same and to forbear the respondent from insisting on obtaining prior permission for the transport of cotton by the petitioner mills to its sister units and vice versa. In support of the writ petitions, the petitioner herein has filed separate affidavits wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file these present writ petitions and requested this Court to allow those writ petitions are prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents a counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately they have requested this Court to dismiss these writ petitions for want of merits. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have perused the contents of the affidavits and the counter-affidavit together with all other relevant material documents available on record in the form of typed set of papers. I have also taken into consideration the various points raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties during the course of their arguments.In the above facts and circumstances of these cases, the only common point that arises for consideration in these cases is, as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow these writ petitions or not. I have also taken into consideration the various points raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties during the course of their arguments.In the above facts and circumstances of these cases, the only common point that arises for consideration in these cases is, as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow these writ petitions or not. The brief facts of the case of the petitioners as seen from the affidavits are as follows : The petitioner mill is a company having 3 manufacturing units; (1) at Madurai; (2) Paravai and the (3) Manaparai. The Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax and Central Sales Tax numbers are one and the same for all the three units and a single balance sheet is prepared annually for all the three units. The petitioner mill is manufacturing yarn from mainly cotton, among other fibres. For the purpose of manufacturing yarn, the cotton, namely the raw material, is bought both within the State of Tamil Nadu and from other States also. The movement of cotton from outside Tamil Nadu is regulated by the Cotton Transport Act. This Act was enacted with a view to provide for restriction and control of the transport of cotton in certain circumstances. Section 2(g) of the Cotton Transport Act defines the protected area. Section 3 of the Act deals with the power to issue notification prohibiting import of cotton into the protected area. Section 6 of the Act deals with penalities and Section 7 deals with the power of the Government to make rules. According to them the object of the Act is to regulate the import of cotton from other areas into the protected area and a reading of the Act of 1923 as a whole suggests that a licence is to be obtained only for importing or transporting cotton from an outside area into the protected area. According to them the intention of the legislature, as could be seen from the enactment, is to restrict the movement of cotton into the protected area. Therefore, if persons import goods or transfers goods from outside the protected area into the protected area, he is required under the Act to obtain licence. According to them the Act is however silent about the transport of cotton within the protected area by the licensee to its own units within the protected area. Therefore, if persons import goods or transfers goods from outside the protected area into the protected area, he is required under the Act to obtain licence. According to them the Act is however silent about the transport of cotton within the protected area by the licensee to its own units within the protected area. Tamil Nadu has been declared as a 'Protected Area' for the purpose of the Cotton Transport Act and the provisions of the Act is made applicable only to the Tamil Nadu State and other States have opted not to implement the said Act in their respective States. Thus as per the Cotton Transport Act, Tamil Nadu is considered as a Protected Area and any movement of cotton from outside Tamil Nadu can be done only with an Annual General Licence issued by the Agricultural Department. For this purpose, the petitioner's three units have been issued with three different licences. The certified copies of the licences are issued by the Department of Agriculture on payment of Rs. 2/- per copy and every consignment of cotton bales from outside Tamil Nadu should accompany with a Certified copy of the licence issued by the Agricultural Department to get entry into Tamil Nadu. After receipt of the cotton bales to the petitioner's unit mills, the petitioner have been utilising the stock in all the three units by movements depending upon the need, depending upon the cotton characteristics found out from the petitioner's laboratory. Thus, the cotton bales from Madurai are being transported to Paravi or Manapparai and vice versa. According to them, the petitioner mills have been doing this for the past several years and the officials from the respondent have been visiting the petitioner's unit and inspecting the relevant records maintained by the petitioner and also signing them. The petitioner mills was never required by the authorities or called upon by the Act of 1923 to take a licence for transport of cotton intra protected area, within the units of the petitioner mills from within the same protected area. But recently i.e. since 1989 the respondent who is monitoring the issue of licence and certified copies to all the three units of the petitioner mills has been insisting that the inter unit transfers without permission from the Agricultural Department is in violation of the Cotton Transport Act and the transfers/re-allocations effected during the previous years attracted penalty. But recently i.e. since 1989 the respondent who is monitoring the issue of licence and certified copies to all the three units of the petitioner mills has been insisting that the inter unit transfers without permission from the Agricultural Department is in violation of the Cotton Transport Act and the transfers/re-allocations effected during the previous years attracted penalty. The respondent also called for details of transfers effected in the previous years and on its receipt from the petitioner mill, wrote letters, demanding penalty on the transfers effected without permission. Immediately, the petitioner mills replied to the demand letters stating that penalty could not be levied. But however, since the respondent was insisting on the payment of penalty, the petitioner under protest paid a sum of Rs. 6, 916/- relating to the demand dated 23-9-1989 and a sum of Rs. 7, 696/- relating to the demand notices dated 24-10-1989. Thus, it is condended by the petitioner that levying penalty in W.P. Nos. 12433 and 12434 of 1990 by the respondent in the circumstances is totally without jurisdiction and under the Cotton Transport Act, there is no requirement to obtain prior permission for transferring cotton within the same 'protected area', i.e. by a mill for its own units within the some protected area. Again on 6-2-1990, the respondent has issued a notice to the petitioner mill at Thaikesar Alai, Manapparai, calling upon the said unit to pay a sum of Rs. 3, 224/- as penalty for not obtaining permission for transferring cotton to other units of the petitioner mills. According to the petitioner, under the conditions of the Annual General Licence, the respondent is insisting on the obtaining of prior permission of the respondent before transferring cotton within the petitioner's units. The condition, namely, that they should obtain prior permission for transferring cotton to the sister units of the petitioner within Tamil Nadu is ultra vires of the Cotton Transport Act, 1923 and the respondent has no jurisdiction or authority to impose a penalty for such transport within the protected area or has authority to insist for prior permission for any such transport. Hence aggrieved against the same these writ petitions.In these writ petitions challenging the impugned action of the respondent, the petitioner herein is contending that a licence is needed only when cotton is brought into Tamil Nadu i.e. the protected area and no licence is required to be obtained or permision to be obtained for transporting such imported goods within the sister units of the same mills, that the action of the respondent in imposing penalty for transporting cotton to the petitioner's sister mills situated within the same protected area is against the provisions of the Cotton Transport Act, and the Rules made thereunder and the same is without jurisdiction, and that the condition No. 10 of the Licence annexed along with the Annual General Licence contemplating of obtaining permission in advance for transfer of cotton within the sister units is ultra vires of the provisions of the Cotton Transport Act and the conditions laid down for granting the Licence cannot supersede the express provisions of the Act. According to them there is no statutory requirement to obtain prior permission for transport within the same protected area. Further according to them as the levying of penalty is not authorised by the Act, the respondent is bound to refund the amounts collected to the petitioner. It is also their come that the Annual General Licence does not specify any such conditions and the condition is laid down by the respondent, has been imposed by him against the provisions of the Act. Even assuming the Rules contemplate any such conditions, the Rules cannot expand the scope of the Act and the Rules are to be framed from within the framework of the Act and it cannot cover areas which are not intended to be covered by the Principal Act. Even assuming the Rules contemplate any such conditions, the Rules cannot expand the scope of the Act and the Rules are to be framed from within the framework of the Act and it cannot cover areas which are not intended to be covered by the Principal Act. Therefore it is their case that even assuming that there is a Rule stating that the Mill is bound to inform regarding the transport of imported cotton from one unit to its other units within the same protected area, then the said rule is ultra vires of the Principal Act and hence it is liable to be struct down.For contra, inter alia, it is contended by the respondent that with the object of maintaining the quality and reputation of the cotton grown in certain areas in India, the Cotton Transport Act 1923 has been enacted providing restriction and control of the Transport of cotton in certain circumstances. According to them the petitioner Mill is involved in the transfer of cotton bales imported under the licences covered by the Cotton Transport Act 1923, outside the premises without permission or the approval of the Licensing Authority, that the cotton imported for one mill cannot be transferred to another mill without the approval of the Licencing Authority and that every Mill is a separate one for the purpose of cotton Transport Act. According to them on a routine inspection, the records pertaining to the transfer without the approval from the Licensing Authority were noticed and that therefore issue of demand notices for Rs. 6, 916/- for Paravai unit and for Rs. 7696/- for Madurai Unit is in order. They contend that the demand notices were issued for the collection of single Licence fee due from Mills only, and it was not the penalty amount. Further according to them, the petitioner Mills in these cases, have violated in transferring cotton bales imported under licence as per the Act without permission from the Licencing Authority. Such loads of transfer are treated or single loads and notice was issued to that mill to pay a sum of Rs. 3224/- towards single licence fees. According to them the transfer of cotton bales imported under the Licence meant for manufacture purpose for a mill in a particular premises to other premises in separate town or city or place is violation of the Act. 3224/- towards single licence fees. According to them the transfer of cotton bales imported under the Licence meant for manufacture purpose for a mill in a particular premises to other premises in separate town or city or place is violation of the Act. Such loads are treated as single loads and as per Rule 10 towards fees for single licence, fee Rs. 52/- per such load has been collected and no penalty amount has been collected and hence the request for refund of the penalty amount paid does not arise. Thus it is contended by the respondents that it is proper that the cotton imported under the licence to a particular premises should be utilised at that particular premises itself and if warrants for a transfer the Licensing Authority is not against issue of a permission for a transfer to other units, if properly applied for and that therefore the existing rules are within the framework of the Act and the said rule is not ultra vires of the Principal Act and hence the contention of the Mills that it is liable to be struck down is not sustainable.Having seen the entire material available on record and from the facts and circumstances of these cases and also from the claims and counter claims made by the parties herein it is clear in this case that even according to the respondents in the present case, cotton has been imported for manufacturing purpose at Madurai, Paravai and Theakesar Alai premises and they have been issued separate licences. It is significant to note in this case that as per Rule 1 of the Cotton Transport Act 1923 an Annual General Licence holder has to apply in form 'A' to get Annual General Licence to import cotton from outside the protected areas. Likewise those mills whose capacity is lesser and which want to import lesser quantity or it will apply in form, 'A' to get single licence. Likewise those mills whose capacity is lesser and which want to import lesser quantity or it will apply in form, 'A' to get single licence. In form 'A' the Annual General Licence holder and the single Licence holder undertakes, that, in the event of the ginned cotton imported under the said licence proved unsuitable for the purpose for which it is imported not to sell or Deliver or Transfer in whole or part to any other person but to report the matter to the Licensing Authority and to await his approval to the disposal otherwise before allowing such ginned cotton to leave his premises. It is the categorical case of the respondent that the petitioner mills had transferred the cotton imported under the licence without the permission of the Licensing Authority and hence violate Rule 1 and since the mills had transported the imported bales through road to other mills, they were treated as single loads and due licence fees of R. 52/- per such loads of transfer alone has been collected. In this case it is contended by the petitioners that the petitioner mills is a company having three manufacturing units at Madurai, Paravai and Manaparai. This has not been questioned by the respondent. That apart the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax and Central Sales Tax numbers are one and the same for all the three units and a single balance sheet is prepared annually for all the three units. This aspect also has not been disputed by the respondent. Therefore it is made clear in this case that the petitioner mills has three units under its control in three places. This aspect also has not been disputed by the respondent. Therefore it is made clear in this case that the petitioner mills has three units under its control in three places. In this view of the matter it is contended by the petitioners that if persons import goods or transfers goods from outside the protected area into the protected area he is required under the Act to obtain licence, and this Act is totally silent about the transport of cotton within the protected area by the licencee to its own units within the protected area that after receipt of the cotton bales to the petitioner's unit mills, the petitioner have been utilising the stock in all the three units by movements depending upon the need, depending upon the cotton characteristics found out from the petitioner's laboratory and thus the cotton bales from Madurai are being transported to Paravai or Manaparai and vice versa, that they have been doing this for the past several years and the officials from the respondent have been visting the petitioner's unit and inspecting the relevant records maintained by the petitioner and also signing them and the petitioner mills was never required by the authorities or called upon by the Act to take a licence for transport of cotton intra protected area i.e., within the units of the petitioner mills from within the same protected area. Such intra transfers within the protected area that too in between their own units cannot be said to be violative of Rule 1, because in Form 'A' the Annual General Licence holder undertakes only not to sell or deliver or transfer in whole or part to my other persons. But in this case it is not sale or delivery or transfer to any other person, but to their own units. Therefore there is no violation of Rule 1 and for that they need not get permission of the Licensing Authority or such transfers cannot be treated as single loads and that therefore any penalty or fee whatever it may be cannot be levied for such transfers intra units within the protected area. Thus I see every force in the above contentions of the petitioners herein. Thus I see every force in the above contentions of the petitioners herein. Therefore for the above said reasons I am of the clear view that no licence is required to be obtained or permission to be obtained for transporting such imported goods within the sister units of the same mills and also that action of the respondent in imposing penalty or fees for transporting cotton to the petitioner's sister mills situated within the same protected area is against the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and the same is without jurisdiction.Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons and in the facts and circumstances of this case and also in view of my above discussions with regard to the various aspects of this case I am of the clear view that the petitioners herein have clearly made out a case in their favour and that therefore the impugned orders/action on the part of the respondent in these cases have to be quashed as prayed for. Thus these writ petitions succeed and they have to be allowed as prayed for. In the result, all these writ petitions are allowed, as prayed for. No costs. Consequently W.M.P. Nos. 18905 and 18906/90 are dismissed as not necessary.