LIBERTY OIL MILLS & OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS.

Citation: [1984] 3 S.C.R. 676 · Decided: 01-05-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
.• 
' . 
. . 
I 
i :· 
I 
I 
A 
B 
.,c 
E 
F 
G 
II 
• 
LJBERTY OIL MILLS & OTHERS 
v. 
. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 
• 
May 1, 1984 
. . 
(0. Cl!!NNAPPA REDDY, A.P. SEN AND E.~. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.) 
Imports (Colltrol) Order, '1955-Promufgated under ss. J and 4-A oft!.. 
Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947-Cfmue BB-AJded lattr by woy cj 
amenilmem-Jnterprelotion of-Contemplates action of .interim !1Qture-01<ftr/ 
action mu_st satisfy rule• of naruwl jllstkt!-AutlwrilieJ /WI bound lo gireptt-
• ·:decisional hearing-Authorities mrw give prJ,1t·rlccisiona/ hearlng-DeciJion mJIJtbe 
communicated to person affected-Order need nol .xive rea.>on$ bUIIt!Jl!l illlikalt 
satisfaction furming basis for action and concise statement of aJ/tgalioru-Actic• 
under Clause BB of dJ·aslic natttre-IYJust be a11jmctted by .sense of urgency-S~of 
urgtncy infused by ie1•ual factors-Public .sculiment is otU! sw:fi/Q£tor--PIIbUc 
lntere.s to h« parumowtt collsiderarlott-'-11 is for authorities to coruidu jlub~ 
. · lnt<rt!t-Cuurtt nut to concern themselves wjth sufficiency of grou'nd-<:outlstl 
consider questloH of mala/ide ur patent luck of jurisdicticm. 
Import (Control) 0flfer, 1955-C/ause 8B read with C/au.s~ 11 (4)-lnt<,. 
pretation.. uf-Cious~ BB applies eqttally to goods coyered by Op<n Gtnm( 
Licenu. 
lnterprelatiotl of ltulllles-Rules of-Courts nut pernritud 10 ltlterpret srQIJIJOfT 
Instruments so as /o exclude nulllrul justice unless lui11JUQ86 of inslrllm<nt /eal'<IJIJ 
option to Court, 
· 
. . . 
,_ 
• N«tural }ustlct!-Rulcs of-Extent of natural jtuti~Must vary Jrem ctJJl 10 ' 
• case-Interim orr/en Imply /Wtura( justiCe-Seeking comments· of person ll<f•rt 
inYestigution ag«illst him nvllletessury-Dedsion uffcctiey a pusan must /)teo/It" 
nzunicutcd to the ujfeaed pcrsun-Ajfectcd persvn .11mst be giren post-d<ciJiotl4i 
opport11/ty /WI puu/Nc. 
. 
Words am/ pltrases-'lllvestigatioll' -IYhett comm~nus. 
. 
. 
. -
Oa bein11 uiscovercd th~t beef tallow Imported from abroad. was et 
being 110hl Ill vana~p~ti or used in its p~anufa~turo ·by certain un.sct_'lputo~ 
persons, general public f.:eling was rous~d ond there was public agitatton ao 
demands ~re mude that 1.:vcco nctiou be tukcn ~gainst those responsible . . 1u 
a result of the discoveries tho Centcul Government thou&ht that drastic acuo~ 
wa• called for. So, a notilio:utlon was issu~d under s 3(3) of tbo Imports 
80
• 
E 
· 
· 
tt ~dptl 
~ports (Control) Act, 1947 totulty bannln_g tho impact of beef, butl"a 0 
bet 
tallow Inti> Jndill w.e.r. Auau~t 24, 1~83. And, on <!ill"crent dateiJ. in Nov~l!l · J 
r 
1 
. 
LIDERTY OIL MILI.S·v: UNION 
r
:, ' 
' n~ o«>cmbor ~983, five circ~l~rs. styled 'ahcyance' c'rcul~r!l-and mark~d ·sC::rct' 
. 
• 
. sued by the Doputy Ch1ef Con•rollcr of Imports and E•porls in respect of 
were 
15 y as 19! concerns directing .licensing authorilits to keep in aboyanet for a 
., ~n 
of six months from the ~espcctive d~tes of the circulars, any application 
· p< ;,ed from any of them for the grant <?f Import l1c.:nce or customs clearance 
f
. 
~its' and allotment of impo rtod goods through agencies· like the Slates 
~~ding corporation of India Limited or nny other similar agency. Tboush the 
,;.-ullfS did not tbcms,lves. e to any statutory authonty, they wcro, ascl•imed 
I 
•od ns agreed to by the parties, presumed to be statutory orders made in e..crcise. 
{ 
of the power conferred by ct. 8 B of th< Import (Control) Orlicr, 1955: Sc>cr..J· 
{' 
pc:~ons 3gainst whom '•beyance' Orders haJ' been made tiled writ petitions in 
• ~ 
dilferent llish Courts challenging tl:osc o+dcrs. Lib<rty Oil f>lills wa.s one . of 
'l 
thoSO who filed such a writ petition in the Bombay H1gh Coun. The case was . 
·: v· ,,th:rawn to the Supreme Court under ':'-rt, 139A of the Constituuoa. 
r 1 
u:·erty Oil M1lls contenJeu: · (I) that the requisito satisfacuon , of Ute 
• ~ . · ;ppropria.tc :tuthorhy which was n~""essary for issuing an ord..:r uont!f: cl. Sll was .. 
" 
not only not recorded In the circular but t: '"'was no material whatsoever upon 
which such satisfaction could have been arrived at; C) that the· circulor was 
not confined to the banned item of animal ~;~tk>w or to items which could be said 
to have oumo cMncction with the ·t-anned Hem. but cxt<ndcd to nil item, for 
~hlch a~plic>tiOns for the grant of licenc-es or for allotment had been made by 
l ihmy Oil Mills; (3) that general nature of the order discloscu n total noa· 
application of the mind: {4) that

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