AJOOMAL LILARAM AND ANOTHER versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1983] 2 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 13-12-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
... 
• • 
AJOOMAL LILARAM AND ANOTHER 
'· 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
December 13, 1982 
[0. CHlNNAPPA RBDDY AND V. BALAK:RISHNA ERADI, JJ.] 
Con1titution of India-Art. 136-Public 
sector 
undtrtaking-Wrong 
stattmtnts made in affidavits.filed-Government's instructions di1regarded-Reliej· 
iranted to petitioners. 
In Jone 1982 the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports issued export 
instructions on the subject of Export Policy of Niger Seeds daring 1982-83. 
Paragraphs 2 •nd 3 of·tbe instructions stated that the Government had decided to 
allo'Y export of Niger Seeds within an overall ceiling of 10,000 metric tonnes 
tbro~gh the National Agricu1twal ·Cooperative Marketing Federation of.India 
(NAFED) subject to a minimum export price of Rs. 8,500 per metric tonne. In 
addition to NAFED, private exporters who registered their contracts with 
NAFED were also allowed to export the seeds on the basis of fir9t come first 
Served, agaipst firm commitments backed by irrevocable letters of credit, subject 
to availability of cei!in"g. It was also stated that the N APED would be-responsible 
to monitor the ceiling and ensure that export of the seeds did not exceed the 
overall quantity of 10;000 metric tonnes during the year. A· Trade Notice on 
these lines was issued by thcf Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. 
On. the faith of the trade notice the petitioner entered into contract with 
a foreign-QUyer who opened a firm irrevocable letter of credit in favour of the 
petitioner. 
The petitioner thereupon requested the NAFED to register the 
con'tract and that one thousand tonnes of seed might be reserved for him for 
export. About six weeks later the petitioner reminded the NAFED by Jetter and 
telegram about his request for allotment of the quota. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
• 
F 
In the meanwhile the NAFED wrote to the Government of India, Ministry 
of Coinmerce that it was for_ NAFED and its Boar-1 of Directors to formulate 
guidelines regarding the release and modalities of export of the seeds and it for-
warded two statements-one showing names of 22 applicants whose requests for 
G 
8.Hotmerit of quotas· were said to be backed by letters of credit aad the other 
containing list ~f 34 names of applicants whose contracts werC' not backed by 
letters of credit. The petitioner's name was included in the first list. 
Reiterating the earlier instructions the Government wrote to the NAFED 
that the allotment of quotas should be in conformity with the instructions and 
the Trade Notj~9 an~ that it wai not f()r th~ N,O,FI)!? t9 i~Jue another Trade 
:Notic~. 
2 
SUPREME COURT JlllPORTS 
(1983) 2 !.C.R. 
A 
In disregard of the instructions the NAFED selected certain applicants 
and gave time to them to produce letters of credit .. The petitioners were not in 
this list. 
The Delhi High Court dismissed in limine the petitiOncrs' petition under 
Art. 226 of the Constitution. 
"B 
The petitioners thereupon filed their petition under Art. 136 of tho 
.c 
·o 
E 
F 
Constitution. 
Allowing the petition, 
HELD : While the petitioners aatisfy all tho requirements of the Trade 
N otico some of tho applicants chosen by the NAFED· for allotment of quota did 
not furnish the letters of credit and the NAFED's action in giving them time for 
their production was not in accordance with the terms stipulated by the Trade 
Notice. [6 HJ 
Tho file produced by the Government of India .. posed tho statement made 
in the NAFED's affidavit that . the petitioners were not in tho list of 22 as false. 
Its counsel was misled and wrongly instructed to argue that the petitiOners were 
not included in that list. But the petitioners in fact figured in the itatement 
entitled "enquiries received from private parties backed by letters of credit for 
export of Niger seeds" prepared by tho NAFBD and sent to the Government of 
India. [7 E] 
Even if the claim of NAFED that the selected applicants had secured a 
higher price and that that would help to earn more foreign.exchange is correct, 
they were not eligible for registration firstly because . t~eir eontracts were not 
backed by !otters of credit in terms of the Trade Notice and· secondly because 
the ceilin~ had atre•dy b•en roachod. [7 OJ 
Tho counter-affidavit filed by the Government of India fully •ubstlintiates 
the claim of the petitioners that tho NAFED bad disregarded the tr'iiile instruc. 
tions issued by the Government of Iridia as well as the Trade Notice which was 
issued pursuant to the trade instru

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.