IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

(APPELLATE SIDE)

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Smita Das De

WPA 29892 of 2025

Indian Jute Mills Association & Another.

-Vs-

Union of India & Another.

Smita Das De, J.:-

1. The instant writ petition WPA 29892 of 2025 has been filed by the

petitioner, challenging inter alia, the fixation of price of jute bags for

the months of October and November 2025 contrary to the existing

pricing formula communicated by the Ministry of Textiles dated

October 17, 2025.

2. Apropos the facts of the case, the petitioner no 1 herein is the Indian

Jute Mills Association. The petitioner no. 2 is the secretary of the

petitioner no 1. Respondent no 1 is the Union of India and the

respondent no 2 is the Jute Commissioner, who performs the

For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Adv.

: Mr. Deepan Kr. Sarkar,

:

:

:

Mr. Uttam Sharma,

Mr. Samriddha Sen,

Ms. Vrinda Kedia

For the UOI :

:

:

:

Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tewari, Sr. Adv.,

Mr. Dibashis Basu,

Mr. Arijit Mazumder,

Mr. Arun Bandyopadhyay

Reserved on : 18/05/2026

Judgment on : 12/06/2026

2

functions assigned by the JTCO 2016 including giving effect to the

provisions of the Jute Packaging Materials (Compulsory Use in Packing

Commodities) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the “JPM Act”) and

the JTCO 2016, inter alia, by issuing from time to time, Production

Control and Supply Orders.

3. In the year 2016, the petitioners, as well as one of the members of the

Petitioner no 1, Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Limited, filed writ petitions

being W.P. No. 369(W) of 2016 and W.P. No. 9409(W) of 2016,

challenging inter alia, the fixation of the price of B-twill bags for the

months of March, April, May and June 2016 by respondent no 2.

4. The parties having arrived at a settlement, this Hon’ble Court, by an

order dated June 20, 2016, as corrected by a subsequent order dated

June 29, 2016, has been pleased to dispose of the writ petition

,directing, inter alia, the Jute Commissioner to fix the price of B-Twill

Jute Bags on the basis of the moving average of raw jute prices for the

preceding three months computed on the basis of the quotations of the

Jute Balers Association (in short “JBA”) & M/s. A. M. Mair & Co. Pvt.

Ltd (in short “A.M Mair”). The order has been passed with the consent

of the Jute Commissioner being the Respondent no 2 and Union of

India being, the Respondent no 1 herein.

5. In March 2021, the Union of India published a report by way of an

executive order titled “Report on Normative Price of Type ‘B’ Twill 580

gms Jute Bags (50kg capacity)”, (hereinafter referred to as “the Tariff

Commission Report”) for the purpose of computation of the fair price of

raw jute and jute bags by Respondent no 2.

3

6. On September 23, 2024 the petitioners came to learn that, pursuant to

a decision taken on August 28, 2024, the respondent no. 1 has already

approved a new pricing methodology for jute sacking bags based on

the Tariff Commission Report, thereby providing for more favourable

pricing to jute mills.

7. The Tariff Commission Report stipulates that the formula for fixation of

the price of raw jute is the three month moving average of the market

price. The said report further prescribes the methodology for

determining the fair price of jute bags. In accordance with the

methodology of the report, the Jute Commissioner has been fixing the

price of raw jute as well as that of jute bags and other jute textiles

procured from Jute Mills.

8. The three month moving average price of raw jute, which forms the

basis for fixation of the price of B-Twill jute bags has been a

Government Policy on an “All India” basis, as is evident from the

records and the documents pertaining to the meeting of the Cabinet

Committee on Economic Affairs as held on June 5, 2002.

9. On September 17, 2025 the petitioner, by a notice issued under the

Right to Information Act, 2005 requested inter alia, for the disclosure

of the pricing formula applied by the Office of the Jute Commissioner

for determining the price of jute bags as well as the component wise

breakup of the price of jute bags declared by the Jute Commissioner

for the last 12 months.

10. No price notification has been issued in respect of jute bags for the

months of October and November 2025. However, the Production

4

Control and Supply Orders issued for these months in question

reflects the price of jute bags as specified in the price notification of

September 15,2025 i.e Rs 7,458.81 per 100 bags , for both Type A and

Type B jute bags.

11. For the month of September 2025 the raw jute cost /material cost

has been determined by the Jute Commissioner at Rs 85,481.90. The

material cost is arrived at, after taking into consideration the price of

raw jute declared on a daily basis by the JBA and A.M. Mair.

12. The price of jute bags has remained unchanged since September

2025, notwithstanding the gradual increase in the material cost

namely the price of raw jute. However, the component wise cost

break-up as furnished by the Office of the Jute Commissioner

discloses that the material cost i.e the price of raw jute stood at Rs

85,481.90 for October 2025. Significantly, the said price remained

unchanged for November 2025 as well, as is evident from the

Production Control and Supply Orders dated November 19, 2025.

13. By an order dated May 11, 2022 this Hon’ble Court in WPA No 1126

of 2022, inter alia, observed that jute mills are required to be

reimbursed for their actual cost of production, having due regard to

the cost and availability of raw jute .

14. The petitioner have issued various representations to respondent no

2, inter alia , calling upon the respondent to adhere to the cost based

pricing formula approved by the Cabinet Committee of Economic

Affairs (CCEA).In the alternative the petitioner requested that in the

5

event prices are to be fixed, raw jute be made available to jute mills at

such fixed prices.

15. The petitioners have also filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble

Court being WPA No 28244 of 2025. During the pendency of the said

writ petition ,the respondents issued a further price fixing notification

on December 17, 2025 (hereinafter referred to as the “December 2025

notification”) fixing the maximum ex-factory price of B-Twill sacking

580 gms Type–A &Type–B jute bags for the month of December, 2025.

16. It has been expressly recorded in the order dated December 18,

2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court while disposing of the Writ Petition

No 28244 of 2025 that liberty has been granted to the petitioners to file

the instant writ petition inter alia, challenging, the failure of the

respondent in fixing the price of jute bags for the months of October

and November 2025 in accordance to the applicable pricing formula/

methodology.

17. The September 2025 notification issued for the price fixation for jute

bags, pursuant to the formula approved by the CCEA on December 17,

2025 which has been the subject matter of challenge in the WPA

28244 of 2025.

18. Being aggrieved by the difference in price of jute bags for the months

of October and November 2025 i.e the difference between the price of

jute bags determined as per the applicable pricing formula stated in

the letter dated October 17, 2025 and the price that the petitioner had

to transact with, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

Contention of the Petitioner –

6

19. Learned Counsel on appearing behalf of the petitioner submits that

the CCEA is the highest policy making authority of the Central

Government in economic matters. The pricing formula approved by the

CCEA and communicated by the Ministry of Textiles on October 17,

2025 is not a mere executive suggestion but a binding policy directive.

The Jute Commissioner, being a subordinate implementing authority

under the administrative control of the Central Government is legally

bound to act in conformity with such policy.

20. It has been also submitted that the petitioner challenged the

September notification and the non – issuance of pricing notification

for October and November 2025 by filing a writ petition being W.P.A No

28244 of 2025 wherein this Hon’ble Court has been pleased to direct

as reproduced below-

“2. Since the above notification seeks to determine the price of the Jute

Bags for an indefinite period commencing from December, 2025. Mr

Tiwari learned Senior Advocate in response to a query of this Court on

instruction from the Deputy Jute Commissioner who is present in Court ,

would submit that this notification is limited to the month of

December,2025 and in month of January,2025 a review would be

initiated to evaluate the price of Jute in accordance with the applicable

pricing formula morefully stated in Annexure II to the Ministry of

Textiles letter dated October 17,2025 or such additional formula or

terms as may be notified from time to time in accordance with law.

3. Having regard to such submission made in Court today I am of the

view of that the writ petition can be disposed of without deciding the

other reliefs by granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the pricing

for the months of October and November 2025, by way of a separate

proceeding if so advised.”

7

21. As held by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court, that the

Government is required to determine and thereby notify the price of

jute bags on a month by month basis, as recorded in the Ministry of

Textiles letter dated October 17, 2025 and the judgment and order

dated December 18, 2025, also mandates a monthly review of the cost

of jute bags. This direction has been implemented by the respondent

no 2, who in compliance with the said order, has been reviewing jute

costs on a month by month basis since January 2026 in accordance

with the pricing formula set out in the Ministry of Textiles letter dated

October 17, 2025.This fact has been admitted by the respondents and

the price notification for the month of January 2026 has been duly

issued.

22. It is further submitted that by an order dated May 11, 2022 both the

Hon’ble Court and the Trial Court directed inter alia, that with regard

to the alleged unusual price rise attributable to illegal hoarding in the

month of January 2025, and in the first ten days of August 2025, if

the said allegation is found to be correct, the Jute Commissioner is

requested to take immediate action against the perpetrators of such

hoarding.

23. It is submitted that the policy is binding on the Jute Commissioner

and the Jute Commissioner cannot deviate from the same until and

unless a new policy is introduced superseding the earlier.

Contention of the Respondents-

24. Per Contra, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent submits

that the present petition pertains to fixation of the price of Jute bags

8

for the month of October, 2025 and November, 2025 which is a matter

of economic policy, executive discretion and technical expertise, and is

not amenable to judicial review except on limited grounds of

arbitrariness as such it should be dismissed in limini with costs.

25. It is further contented that the price fixation is a complex

administrative function involving technical assessment of raw material,

price dynamics and other exigencies. The Jute Commissioner is

required to retain administrative flexibility and cannot issue

notifications mechanically without fresh assessments. The

communication dated October 17, 2025 is a policy guideline intended

to aid decision making and does not extinguish the statutory discretion

vested in the Jute Commissioner under the jute Textile Control Order,

2016, strictly adhering to all circumstances by exercising necessary

administrative discretion. Any delay in issuance of notification, due to

procedural requirements pending data collection and administrative

exigencies, does not amount to arbitrariness or illegality warranting

judicial interference under Article 226.

26. It has been submitted that if the price ceiling is withdrawn, jute

prices would have become uncontrollable, and Government jute bags

prices in September 2025 at around Rs. 74.58 i.e 2 to 2.5 times the

price of alternate plastic bags at present, could rise without any limit,

bleeding the public exchequer heavily and unduly benefitting only the

middlemen, hoarders & Jute mill Owners with no benefit accruing to

farmers.

9

27. WPA No 1126 of 2022 has been filed by the petitioners in the context

of fixation of raw jute prices, in which this Hon’ble Court upheld the

power of Jute Commissioner to fix the prices of raw jute and directed

Jute Commissioner to take positive steps and adopt stringent

measures to implement the notified rate. Despite all efforts, it appears

that if the notified rate cannot be adhered to, then the Jute

Commissioner shall review and re-fix the rate taking into consideration

the relevant factors as mentioned in the Control Order, 2016. The

current matter pertains to the power of the Jute Commissioner for

fixation of prices of jute bags under Clause 3(6) of Jute and Jute

Textiles Control Order, 2016. By applying the ratio in WP No 1126 of

2022, the Jute Commissioner has been required to review and re-fix

the jute bag rates in December, 2025.

28. The Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court has categorically held in

an appeal filed by the petitioner being FMA No. 1044/2022 which is

reproduced below-

“This Court finds no fault on the part of the Jute Commissioner. The

Jute Commissioner shall take steps as directed by the single bench if

not already taken”

29. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondents further submits that

the Jute Commissioner again approached the State Legal Enforcement

Agencies to extend support for implementing law and order while

apprehending the perpetrators who have been hoarding raw jute to

create an artificial price rise in the market and after finding no suitable

remedy, the commissioner resorted to exercise his statutory duties by

capping the price of B- twill Bags for limited period.

10

30. It has also been contended that the maximum prices for B.T will jute

bags fixed vide statutory notification no S.O. 4165 (E) dated September

15, 2025 issued under Clause 3(6) of Jute and Jute Textiles Control

Order, 2016 which has been applicable for the period from September

to November, 2025 cannot be changed retrospectively as it would

adversely affect all the prices of essential goods.

31. In the case relating to price fixation of raw jute in 2021, it has been

submitted that, an increase in the reasonable price of raw jute will in

no way benefit the farmers, because at present, there is hardly any raw

jute lying with the farmers. The stocks are held only by traders and

millers, who are primarily responsible for the artificial scarcity and

price manipulation in the market. Therefore, price fixation at the

present stage is aimed at curbing, profiteering by intermediaries and

not by depriving farmers of remunerative prices.

32. The steps taken by the Jute Commissioner earlier to curb hoarding

have been supported by this Hon’ble Court, thereby enabling the Jute

Commissioner to move forward and safeguard public by cracking down

on the black market. This Hon’ble Court has equipped the Jute

Commissioner with the necessary authority to control the perpetrators

responsible for the artificial price rise.

33. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondent relies upon a judgment

of Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors

reported at (1990) 3 SCC 223 which dealt with the issue of: whether

fixation of price for sugar under section 3(3-C) of the Essential

Commodities Act, 1955 is an administrative or legislative function and

11

whether there is any scope for judicial review in the fixation of price

thereof. The Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has held

that:

“ price fixation is a legislative function and judicial review is not

concerned with matters of economic policy. The Court does not

substitute its judgment for that of the Legislature or its agents as to

matters within the province of either. The Court does not supplant the

‘feel of the expert’ by its owner views. When the Legislature acts within

the sphere of its authority and delegates power to its agent, it may

empower the agent to make findings of fact which are conclusive

provided such findings satisfy the test of reasonableness. In all such

cases, judicial inquiry is confined to the question whether the findings

of fact are reasonably based on evidence and whether such findings

are sustainable at law of the land. Judicial function in respect of such

matters is exhausted when the court finds rational basis to the

conclusion reached by the authority. In the matters of policy and

planning, it is for the Central Government to decide whether it should

adopt one or other system of control in the best economic interest of the

sugar industry and the general public grouping sugar factories on

geographical-cum- agro- economic factors to determine the price. It was

held that the fixation of price to the sugar was not amenable to judicial

review.”

Analysis -

34. i) The moot issues involved herein is whether the policy decision on

jute bag pricing, approved by the cabinet committee on economic

affair(CCEA) and communicated by the Ministry of Textiles vide

Communication dated October 17

,2025 is at all binding upon the

Jute Commissioner.

ii) Whether the Jute Commissioner’s failure to issue monthly pricing

notification for October and November 2025 in accordance with the

approved formula is arbitrary, violative of the Article 14 of Constitution

12

of India and amenable to a writ of mandamus at the instance of Indian

Jute Mills Association.

35. The respondent authority having adopted a specific pricing

methodology for the determination of the price of jute bags, cannot

subsequently depart from the same and impose an enhanced price on

an adhoc basis. Once a statutory, contractual or court approved the

prescribed methodology, every determination must strictly adhere to

such methodology. Any deviation from the prescribed formula without

proper justification renders the decision vulnerable to judicial review

under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is a well settled

proposition of law as held in the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of

India reported at (1978) 1 SCC 248 ,wherein it has been observed

that every state action must be fair reasonable and free from

arbitrariness. The fixation of prices by a statutory authority in a

manner contrary to the methodology approved by the government

would be manifestly arbitrary and violative of law. The rule of law

demands that executive authorities act within the confines of the

procedure and standards governing the decision making process.

36. It is a settled law that Writ of Mandamus lies to enforce a legal right or

to compel performance of a public duty. The present case involves the

fixation of prices as per the CCEA formulas. The Indian Jute Mills

Association being petitioner No. 1 herein is the apex body of jute mill.

This Writ Petition is maintainable. The jurisdiction of the Hon’ble

Court under Article 226 is rightly invoked to compel the Jute

Commissioner to act in accordance with law. The non-issuance of

13

notification has created a regulatory vacuum. Mills cannot determine

pricing for government supply leading to stalling of procurement as

potential breach of supply obligation under the Jute Packaging

Materials Act.

37. Continued inaction shall cause irreparable injury to the industries

and shall defeat the statutory objective of mandatory jute packaging.

Judicial intervention is necessary to enforce the rule of law and ensure

continuity of government mandated supply.

38. The Supreme Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International

Airport Authority of India, reported at (1979) 3 SCC 489, held that

when an authority lays down norms for the exercise of its power, it is

bound by those norms and cannot arbitrarily depart from them. The

Court also observed that arbitrariness is antithetical to the rule of law

and any departure from prescribed standards without rational

justification would violate Article 14 of the Constitution. Applying the

aforesaid principle, once the Government has prescribed a specific

formula for fixation of jute bag prices, the Jute Commissioner is under

an obligation to adhere to the same and cannot evolve an alternative

methodology.

39. The doctrine of legitimate expectation also supports the case of the

petitioner. In Union of India v. Hindustan Development

Corporation, reported at (1993) 3 SCC 499, the Supreme Court

recognized that where a public authority has adopted a consistent

policy or made a representation giving rise to an expectation, fairness

requires adherence to such representation, unless overriding public

14

interest justifies departure. The jute industry regulates procurement of

raw jute, production schedules and financial planning on the basis of

the pricing mechanism approved by the Government. The mills,

therefore, possess a legitimate expectation that the notified formula

shall be uniformly implemented by the authorities concerned.

40. It is a settled principle of administrative law that where an authority

is required to exercise statutory or administrative powers in

accordance with a policy laid down by the Government, such authority

cannot act contrary to that policy unless the policy itself is

demonstrated to be contrary to law. Any departure from the approved

pricing formula would amount to an exercise of power based on

considerations extraneous to the governing framework, and would

therefore be susceptible to judicial review.

41. The impugned inaction and any adhoc price fixation contrary to the

formula dated October 17, 2025 is liable to be quashed. A positive

direction to notify the prices in accordance with the binding formula is

warranted.

42. The Jute Commissioner is not at liberty to rewrite economic policy.

Once the CCEA has pronounced upon the matter and the Ministry of

Textile has communicated the policy for implementation, the role of the

Jute Commissioner is confined to faithful execution. The constitutional

scheme, administrative law and the doctrine of legitimate expectation

converge on a singular conclusion, the formula dated October17, 2025

is binding and the failure to implement it is arbitrary, illegal and

violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

15

43. In the present case Jute Commissioner has failed to show any

material on record or any basis or justification for not issuing the jute

bag pricing notification by following the existing pricing formula, for

the months of October and November, 2025. In any event, Jute

Commissioner is bound by the judgment and order dated December

18, 2025 which mandated monthly review of cost of jute in accordance

with the pricing formula.

44. The petitioner distinguishes the judgment relied upon by the

respondent Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited and Another vs

Union of India and Others reported in (1990) 3 SCC 223 which deals

with a fact situation where a writ petition has been filed challenging to

the price of sugar fixed by such notifications as being arbitrary,

irrational and discriminatory. In the present case the Indian Jute Mills

Association is neither challenging the existing jute bag pricing formula

nor requesting this Hon’ble Court to fix the price of jute bags. On the

contrary, the Indian Jute Mills Association is seeking enforcement of

policy decision approved by the CCEA (being the applicable jute bag

pricing formula communicated by the Ministry of Textiles vide

communication dated October 17,2025) which is binding on the Jute

Commissioner. It is settled law that a writ petition is maintainable for

enforcement of a binding policy.

45. In conspectus of the above as adumbrated herein this Court is of the

view that once a decision has been approved by the CCEA, the highest

policy making authority of the Central Government in Economic matter

and the same which has been formally communicated by the Ministry

16

of Textiles for implementation, such decision ceases to be a mere

executive suggestion and assumes a binding character upon all

subordinate authorities. The Jute Commissioner being an

implementing authority is bound to act in conformity with such policy

and cannot substitute the prescribed methodology with the different

pricing mechanism of his own choice. The Jute Commissioner being a

Subordinate Authority cannot supplant this policy with an

unprincipled regime. Any attempt to substitute the approved

methodology with his own formulation would be ultra vires and

unsustainable.

46. Having heard the parties at length and perused the materials on

records, this Court holds that the policy decision of the CCEA duly

approved and communicated by the Ministry of Textiles, is binding

upon the Jute Commissioner. The Indian Jute Mills Association,

representing the stakeholders directly affected by the fixation of jute

bag prices, possesses sufficient locus to seek enforcement of such

policy. Any deviation from the prescribed pricing formula, in the

absence of a subsequent policy decision or statutory amendment

authorizing such departure, would be arbitrary, contrary to settled

principles of administrative law, violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution and is liable to be set aside.

47. Accordingly, the impugned price fixation and all consequential

actions taken pursuant thereto are hereby quashed and set aside. The

respondent authorities are directed to determine and notify the price of

jute bags for the months of October and November 2025 strictly in

17

accordance with the pricing formula communicated by the Ministry of

Textiles on October 17, 2025.

48. The respondent shall further pay to the petitioner’s mill the

differential amount, being the difference in the jute bag price

determined in accordance with the CCEA pricing formula dated

October 17, 2025, and the price, if any already fixed or paid by the

Jute Commissioner for supplies made during the months of October

and November. Such differential amount shall be paid forthwith, failing

which the respondent shall have to pay interest at the rate of 9% per

annum from the date it became due until the actual date of payment.

49. The Jute Commissioner shall ensure strict compliance with the

CCEA approved pricing formula and shall be responsible for any future

deviation and consequential loss unless the said computation is

modified by the committee.

50. With the above observation and direction the writ petition WPA

29892 of 2025 is accordingly allowed and disposed of. There shall,

however, be no order as to costs.

51. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order if applied for be supplied

to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all requisite

formalities.

(Smita Das De, J.)