Case Note & Summary
The matter before the Supreme Court involved appeals by several cotton mills against the Assistant Director, Regional Office of the Textiles Commissioner concerning liability under a Notification dated March 20, 1995. Earlier, in S.L.P.(C) No. 6611/95, the Additional Solicitor General had made a concession that if the petitioner carried out the current obligation pursuant to the notification, the respondents would not hold them liable for any past liability. The petitioner thereupon withdrew the SLP, and its counsel also submitted that the petitioner had no objection to prospective liability under the notification. This order was passed on September 25, 1995. Subsequently, other appellants claimed the same relief, and the Union of India filed a Review Petition before the Bench, which was dismissed on March 13, 1996. In the present appeals, the same question arose. The Union of India contended that the concession related only to the period from April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1995, and that the liability now sought to be wiped out also included the period from April 1, 1990 to September 30, 1992, requiring further investigation. The appellants relied on the earlier concession and sought quashing of the orders imposing past liability. The Court found no force in the Union of India's distinction. It held that when past liability was sought to be wiped out for the period from April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1995, the same principle per force applied to the previous period from April 1, 1990 to September 30, 1992. Consequently, all appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were quashed as prayed for. The Court clarified that its order did not preclude the Government from taking appropriate steps open to them under law for any future liability. No costs were awarded. The judgment thus applied the concession consistently across all periods of past liability but preserved the Government's authority to regulate future obligations.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Concession by Additional Solicitor General - Binding Effect on Government - No Specific Statute Cited - In an earlier SLP, the Additional Solicitor General stated that if the current obligation under Notification dated March 20, 1995 was carried out, respondents would not hold the petitioner liable for any past liability; the SLP was withdrawn. The Union of India later contended that the concession covered only April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1995 and not April 1, 1990 to September 30, 1992. The Court rejected the distinction, holding that when past liability was sought to be wiped out for the later period, the same principle per force applied to the previous period. The appeals were allowed, impugned orders quashed, and the Government was not precluded from taking appropriate steps for future liability. Held: the concession extended to all past liability for the stated periods (Paras Not mentioned). B) Administrative Law - Governmental Concession and Future Liability - Reservation of Government's Right - No Specific Statute Cited - The Court clarified that its order quashing past liabilities did not preclude the Government from taking such appropriate steps as are open to them under law for any future liability. This balanced the quashing of past orders with preservation of regulatory authority for future compliance. Held: Government retains power to enforce future obligations (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concession made by the Additional Solicitor General in an earlier special leave petition regarding past liability under the Notification dated March 20, 1995 for the period April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1995 extended equally to the earlier period April 1, 1990 to September 30, 1992, and whether the appeals should be allowed with consequential quashing of orders.
Final Decision
All appeals allowed; impugned orders quashed as prayed for. The Court's order does not preclude the Government from taking appropriate steps open to them under law for any future liability. No costs.
Law Points
- Concession by Additional Solicitor General binds Government
- past liability cannot be split by periods
- principle of wiping out later period applies equally to earlier period
- government may still take action for future liability
- no costs awarded
