LexDURGA PRASHAD versus CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS & EXPORTS & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 c D E F G 861 DURGA PRASHAD v. CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS & EXPORTS & ORS. November 22, 1968 [S. M. SIKRI AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.J Constitution of India, Art. 226---Mandamus seeking import licence- De/ay in filing writ petition-Relief if should be given. The appellant who carried on the business. of export and import applied 'for an import licence to import certain goods. The licence was issued in 1959 for only a part of the value applied for. He filed appeals and ex- hausted all the remedies under para 85 of the order relating to the Export Promotion Scheme, as a result of which finally in March 1962 he was granted a supplementary licence to import a small part of the goods. In April 1964, the appellant approached the Minister, and he was informed that no further licence would be issued to him. Thereupon, the appellant filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus for the issue of the import licence. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine but granted certificate under Art. 133(J)(a) of the Constitu- tion. HELD : The appeal must fail. The petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution was filed after great delay. No explanation was given in the petition for the delay in filing the petition and it was not explained what the appellant was doing between March 6. 1962, when the supplementary licence was issued, and April J 964. The exchange position of this country and the policy of the Gov- ernment regarding international trade, varies from year to year and it would be rather odd for this Court to direct that an import licence be granted in the year 1968 in respect of allegecl default committed by the Government in 1959 or 1962.. In these matters it was essential that persons who were aggrieved by orders of the Government should approach the High Court after exhausting the remedies provided by law, rule or order with utmost expedition. Even in the case of alleged breach of fundamental rights the matter must be left to the discretion of the High Court. [864 G, 865 BJ Smt. Narayani Debi Khaitan v. State of Bihar, C.A. No. 140 of 1964 judgment dated September 22, 1964, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Shri Balwant Regular Motor Service, Amravati, [1969] 1 S.C.R. 808 and Moon Mills v. Industrial Court, A.LR., 1967 S.C. 1450, 1453, 1454, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1116 of 1965. Appeal from the order dated August 26, 1964 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ No. 498-D of 1964. H M. C. Chag/a, Sardar Bahadur, Ajit Prasad lain, Vishnu B. Saharya and Y ougindra Kaushalani, for the appellant. Vi A. Seyid Muhammad and S. P. Nayar, for the respondents. 862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1969) 2 S.C.R. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. The appellant, Durga Prashad, filed a petition ~er Art. 226 of the Constitution against the respondents. The ~gh Court of Punjab, Circuit Bench, Delhi, d~smissed the IJ<'.tltlon in limine. Thereupon the appellant applied for a certificate under Art. 133 (l)(a) of the Constitution. The High C?Uit gave this certificate on the ground that the value of the sub1ect- matter directly involved in the petition exceeds Rs. 20,000/·. In our opinion this appeal must fail on the ground that the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution was filed after great delay. The relevant facts are as under. The appellant was car- rying on business of export and import, and exported goods of the value of Rs. 8,10,325/-, F.O.B. value Rs. 8,03,530.45, dur- ing the period August 25, 1958, to September 29, 1958. On November 12, 1958, the appellant applied for an import licence for art silk yarn of the f.o. b. value of Rs. 8,03,530.45 nP under the Export Promotion Scheme. The Export Promotion Scheme was discontinued with effect from March 6, 1959. On October 9, 1959, import licence of the value of Rs. 3,27,841/- only was issued to the appellant by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay. His appeal against this order was rejected by the Joint Chief Controller on March 4, 1960. It is alleged by the appellant that he was not given a hearing. The appellant filed a second appeal to the Chief Con- troller of Imports and Exports, and this was dismissed on April 22, 1961. Here again it is alleged that no hearing was given to the appellant. He filed a representation against the order dated April 22, 1961, and Of! that representation a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.