LexANDHRA INDUSTRIAL WORKS, A.P. versus CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E G II 32 lt ANDHRA INDUSTRIAL WORKS, A. P. v. CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS AND ORS. April 26, 1974. [A. N. RAY, C.J., K. K. MATHEW, A. ALAGJRISWAMI, P. K. GOSWAMI AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.] fn1port 1rade Control policy-Application for licence to in1port-Rejected-If order of reiflction can be clzallenged, under Art. 32. The petitioner-firm made four applications between November 1969 and N'ovember 1970 for April 1969 to March 1970, for the grant of licences to import :;tainless steel sheets and electrolytic copper wire bars for the manufacture of automobile parts. The Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports· received f.ome complaints that the firm had been rnisutilising imported material, and criminal proceedings were :;tarted against the firn1. Since the applications were not disposed ·:>f within the usual time of three weeks, the petitioner i'iled writ petitions in the High Court and the High Court directed the respondents to diSpose of the applications as expeditiously as possible. Jn Septe1nber 1972,. instructions were given by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports that \he import lrade control policv had been amended and that the jmport of the mato;::rials in question for utilisa:tion in autornob!Je pa~b was prohibited. In November, 1972 the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports informed the petitioner lhat its applications have been rejected. Dismissing the writ petitions filed under Arl. 32 in this Court, alleging violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Arts. 14 and 19, HELD : ( 1) Since the firm stands for all the partners and the petitions must be deemed to have been filed by all ·1he partners v,.·ho are citizens of India, the writ p:!titions on behalf of the firm were maintainable. [329H] (2) But no relief could be granted to the petitioner. The jurisdiction of this Court t',nder Art. 32, ;;an be invoked 011/y for the enforcement of fundamental rights. [330A-B] (a) An applicant has no vested right to an in1po;1 lic·~nce in term·5 of the policy in force at the time of the application; and in accordance with the an1ended import trade control policy the licences applied for could not be granted. The Import and Export Control Act, 1947, or any Order or rule made thereunder is not P.!tra vires; and the va,lidity of th:! Import Control PoliCy Statement had not been i1npeached. No person can merely on the basis of such a statement claim a right to the grant of an import licence, enforceable at law. The policy can be changed or rescinded by mere administrative orders or executive instructions issued at any time. [330E·-G; 331CJ (b) There is no substance in the contention that the instructions or orders made in pursuance of the Import and Export Control Act place unreasonable restrictions on the petitioners' right to carry on trade, or business. These restrictions obviously have been imposed in the interest of general public and' national economy. [331G] (c) The Deputy Chief Controller did not lack inherent jurisdiction to de<il with and decline the applications for the grant of licences. Jn view of the super- vening criminal proceedings against the petitioner the Deputy Chief Controller might have thought that it was better for him to defer decision on the application till the ~erminatio~of those proceedings. There was thus delay in dealing with the aoplication, but the delay could not be said to be undue or motivated by bad faith. [33 lA-B, F] (d) There is no question of violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution as no parti- culars have been given of any other applicant, similarly situated, of having beelli given an import licen•:e in similar circumstances. [332B-C] 322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1975] 1 S.C.R. Smt. U~jatn Bai v . . State cj U.P. [1963] 1 S.C.R. 781 and J)eprtty As.sistant A Iron and Steel Co11trolfer and anr. v. Ma11ickcha11d Proprietor, Kutre!la Metal Corp11. Madras, [1972] 3, S.C.R. 1, followed. ORIGl;\'AL JURrsoiCTIC'.'J: VVrit Petitions Nos. 122 to 12 .. 5 of 1973. Under Art. 32 of the Constitntion of India. Y. S. Chitale, and K. Raj Choudhury, for the appellant. S. N. Prasad and S. P. Nayar, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by- B SARKARJA, J.-In these four writ petitions under Artick 32 of tho 'Constitution, the parties and the basic questions for determination arc the same. They will therefore be disposed of by a common
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.