LexDAVA SON OF BHIMJI GOHIL versus JOINT CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS & EXPORTS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
·' 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 73 DAVA SON OF BHIMJI GOHIL v. JOINT CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS & EXPORTS (B .. P. SINHA, C. J.,. K. SuBBA ltAo, N. RAJAGOPAI,.A AYYANGAR, J. R. MuDHOLKAR and T. L .. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.) , Export Control-Manganese Ore-Notifications canalis- ing expo-rt and preventing new entrants from exporting-Oonsti~ tutionality of-State Trading Corporation-Monopoly of export creat~d in favour of-!! infringes fundame.ntal right to carry on trade-Notification dated May 26, 1958-Exports Control Order, 1958-lmport~ and Exp6rts (Control) Aot, 194.7 (18 of 1947), s. 3-Constitution of India, Art.s.19 (1) (g) and 19 (6). There was little internal demand for manganese ore and it was extracted mainly for exporting out of India, TJlough previously there was no restriction on the grant of export licen- ' ces from 1956, the Central Government started controlling and restricting the export of manganese ore. On May 26, 1958, the Central Government issued a notification which contained the policy statemen.t for the period July 1958 to June 1959 un- der which export quotas were to be granted only to established shippers and mineowners who had exported from 1953 onwards and to the State Trading Corporation. Mine (\wner's, like the appellant who did not have an} export performance in the earlier years were excluded from the scheme. They could sell their ore only to the established shippers are to the Corpora· tion which they could do only at. unremunerative prices. By sub~equent policy statements the export was canalised entirely through the Corporation. Section 3 of the Imports and ex- ports (Control) Act, 1947 empowered the Central Government to make orders restricting or controlling the imports and ex- ports of goods. The Central Government made the Exports Control Order, 1958, cl. 6(h) of which empowered the Central Government and the licensing authority to refuse to grant a licence "if the licensing authority decides to canalisc exports through special or specilized agencies or channels". The Noti· fication of May 26, 1950, was issued under cl. 6(h). The appellants contended: (I) that the withholding of the right to engage in the export trade from a class of mineowners consti- ·tuted an unreasonable restriction on their fundamental right guaranteed under Art, 19(1)(g), (II} that cl. 6 (h) ofthe order was ultra virt! the Central Government as s. 3 of the Act - •··• ........ ' -~ - -:"k.. . ~ '' / 74 SUPR~~IE COURT REPORTS [1963] · 196Z . permitted it to pfac~ restrictions only on good:! and not on the D(j,'!Ja ''" oj Bhimji persons who might participate in the export, and (iii) that the '>-- Uohil notification by which canalisation of exports was affected wa.. v. outside the contempiation of". agency and channel under ,. JaitJt Chi~! Con 'roller cl. 6 (h). . · "'- •f Imp•rls .II Exports . .• . • · Held (per Smha, C.J., Ayyangar, Mudholkar and A1yar, · 'JJ.) that the restrictions and control imposed on the export of · manganese ore by the Central Government were legal and did not offend~t._l9(1) (g). The restriction or control in the form of channelling or . ,t canalising the trade was not outside the limitations which "'m:ght be imposed on export trading by s. 3 of the Act and consequently cl. 6 (h) of the Order permitting canalisation of exports was within the rule making pow:~r of the Ce~tral Government. The power to impose restrictions was not confined togoods but extended to persons also. The .canalis· . ing of the exports through the established shippers and mine- . owners was unobjectionable; canalising through the State Trading Corporation and the progressive increase through the corporation was a reasonable restriction in the interests of· · · the general public. The object ·or these restrictions and control was to enable ·a regular supply of uniform quality of the ore to the forei:;n buyers so as to ensure the optimum earning of foreign exchange by the count! y~ and this could best be attained with the Corporation as the main agency engaged in the trade: The State Trading Corporation was a "special" agency or channel as contemplated by d. (h) and the canalising could be done through it. A ~pedal agency is one which is more likely to achieve ·the object. than other agencies or to achieve it in a larger measure than others. Canalising n~cessarily implied the exciusion of some groups, and if the canalising
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.