Madhavan Nair, J. - (1.)THIS is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in its civil appellate jurisdiction, dated April 23, 1946, which affirmed a judgment and order of the said High Court in its original civil jurisdiction, dated March 29, 1946.
(2.)THE appeal arises out of an application to the High Court of Madras made by the appellant, the Sree Meenakshi Mills, Limited, under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, against the respondent, the Provincial Textile Commissioner, Madras. It concerns the validity of certain seizures made by the respondent of yarn belonging to the appellant.
The material provisions of Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act are as follows : 45.Any of the High Courts of Judicature at Fort William, Madras and Bombay, may make an order requiring any specific act to be done or forborne, within the local limits of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, by any person holding a public offce, whether of a permanent or temporary nature. . . provided : (a) that an application for such order be made by some person whose property, franchise or personal right would be injured by the forbearing or doing (as the case may be) of the said specific act; (b) that such doing or forbearing is, under any law for the time being in force, clearly incumbent on such person or Court in his or its public character. . . ; (c) that in the opinion of the High Court such doing or forbearing is consonant to right and justice; (d) that the applicant has no other specific and adequate legal remedy; and (e) that the remedy given by the order applied for will be complete. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise any High Court * * * * (h) to make any order which is otherwise expressly excluded by any law for the time being in force.

The application came to be made in the following circumstances:

(3.)THE appellant is a limited liability company and carries on cotton-spinning and weaving business in Madura. It spins yarn and weaves it into cloth with about 80 handlooms installed in the mill premises. THEse not being sufficient to weave all the yarn produced by the mill, the services of handloom weavers outside the mill are engaged by the appellant. Of these outside weavers, some carry on business in the neighbourhood of Madura, and others in the neighbourhood of Rajapalayam, about 60 miles distant from Madura. THE appellant hands over to these weavers extra yarn produced at the mills in order that it may be woven into cloth by the said weavers for the appellant and be brought back to the mills as finished cloth. THE outside weavers are paid piece rates, i. e. according to the quantity of cloth which they produce. THE transaction between the appellant and the outside weavers is not a transaction of sale or a transaction in which the property in the yarn passes to the persons to whom it is entrusted. Both the yarn and the cloth made out of it belong to the appellant. It is common case that the transaction is one of bailment of the yarn made under a contract by which outside weavers undertake to do certain work in relation to the yarn so bailed. THE business lias been carried on by the appellant in this manner since 1944.
On February 20, 1946, the respondent issued an order under Clause 18b (1) (b) of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1945hereinafter referred to as the "control Order"directing the appellant to confine its delivery of yarn to three categories of persons, namely: (a) Licensed yarn dealers (in accordance with. . . . Clause 18a of the Control Order ). (b) To Consumers who purchased yarn directly from the appellant during the basic period 1940-42. (c) Persons working the appellant's handlooms erected in the appellant's spinning mill at Madura. Clauses 18a and 18b of the Control Order are as follows : 18a. (1) No manufacturer shall, save in accordance with a general or special permission of the Textile Commissioner or in compliance with a direction given under Clause 18b (a) sell or agree to sell cloth or yarn to any person who (i) is not a licensed dealer under the rules framed in this behalf by the Provincial Government; and (ii) did not as a dealer buy any cloth or yarn from him at any time during the years 1040, 1041 and 1942; (b) during any quarter deliver to any dealer, whether in pursuance of a pre-existing contract or otherwise, cloth or yarn in excess of his quota determined under Sub-clause (2 ). (2) For purposes of Sub-clause (1) (b), a dealer's quota of cloth shall bear to the value of the total deliveries of cloth made to all dealers during the quarter by the manufacturer concerned the same proportion as the value of the total deliveries of cloth made to that dealer during the years, 1940, 1941 and 1942 bore to the value of the total deliveries made to all dealers during the same years by the same manufacturer; and a dealer's quota of yarn shall be similarly determined. (3) Every manufacturer shall maintain a register of contracts and deliveries and shall submit returns in such form and at such time as the Textile Commissioner may prescribe. 18b. (1) The Textile Commissioner may, with a view to securing a proper distribution of cloth or yarn or with a view to securing compliance with this order, direct any manufacturer or dealer, or any class of manufacturers or dealers (a) to sell to such person or persons such quantities of cloth or yarn as the Textile Commissioner may specify; (b) not to sell or deliver cloth or yarn of a specified description except to such person or persons and subject to such conditions as the Textile Commissioner may specify; (c) to furnish such returns or other information relating to his or their undertaking, and in such manner, as the Textile Commissioner may specify; and may issue such further instruction as he thinks fit regarding the manner in which the direction is to be carried out. (2) Every manufacturer or dealer shall comply with the directions and instructions given under Sub-clause (1 ). It will be observed that the order passed under Clause 18b (1) (b) in effect prohibits the appellant from delivering yarn to owners of handlooms outside the mill premises. Despite the prohibition the appellant continued to deliver yarn to such owners in order (as already mentioned) that they might burn the yarn into cloth and bring the article back to the mills. The respondent considered this to be an infringement of his order of February 20, 1946, and seized certain quantities of yarn which had been delivered to the outside weavers.