M/S. RAMCHAND JAGDISH CHAND versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1962] 3 S.C.R. 72 · Decided: 08-08-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

1961 
' 
SUPREJ\IE COl'.RT REPORTS 
[196Zj 
M/s. RAMCHA.ND JAGADI~H CHAND 
ti. 
CNION OF INDIA AND .OTHERH 
(P.B. GAJE:>ImAGADKAR, K. Si::nBA RAo, 
)l. HrnAYATt;J.LAH, J.C. SHAH arnl RAG!lt"RAR 
DAYAL, JJ.) 
Import 
I,,c,nrr-Imporl Trad< Co11trol Pol1sy-Export 
l'romotion-SrMmp-Jlight of Statr to im/>OR< 1eatrictioru °" 
imports-If infringes fundamental righl-·f.icencing Authority 
-l'ou:er., granted undrr the Erhfmf:·-·H'hethtT u11ranalised and 
arhitrary-E111e,.genry J>rot1.,efo11,, (contr'nuanre) (Jrdinance, 1946 
-Import" and ExJ1orl" (Control) Act, 1947t18 of J.947) •.J-
Impo1ta (Control) Ord.r J.9,55, Cl. 
3, Ap]undix 42, cl. ~­
Const.itution of India-Arts. 
N, l.'l(l)(g). 
In.tert•cncr-H'rit petition disn1is.1:ed hy lligh (,'ourt-I'ct1'tion.tr 
could {If! 1Le1rd aA interrener in i'Jupre1nc (·ourf-]{iyht of appeal-
Conatitulion of India-Art. 226. 
(;ovcr111nent of India published a schcn1c known as the 
"Export Promotion Schcn1e" according to \vhich the value of 
import licence for 
rav.· matrrials in an 
industry depended 
upon the \'alue of specified ,·arieties of .~oo<ls exported by 
the applicant for an import licence. 
It also empowered the 
Controller 
of 
Imports 
ond 
Exports 
under cl. 2 of 
Appendix 42 of the Import (Control) order 1955 to issue 
a license up 
to 66! P"' cent of the export value in the case 
of Indian artsilk sarees and up to 100 per cent in the case 
of other Indian artsilk fabrics. The appellant firm 
R of 
exporters and importers relying upon cl2 of the Export 
Promotion Scheme applied for 
an import licence equivalent 
to the value of the goods it had exported and earned foreign 
exchange. 
In view of certain 1nalpracticcs the Government 
of India suspended the "Export 
Promotion" scheme and 
set 
up a committee for verification of the values of goods exported. 
'l'hc Comtnittce after scrutinising the firm's claim found that 
rates of sonic of the itetns could not be accepted as reasonable, 
and recommended an import licence approximately of the 
value of 45 per cent of the goods exported. The firm R after 
making an infructuous demand for a licence for the full value of 
the goods exported filed a \\Tit petition. 
They 
submitted 
that the Controller of l,icenccs had arbitrarily reduced 
the 
value of their irnport licence 
aod had thereby unlawfully 
infrioged their fundamental right. They also claimed that 
the Controller was bound to grant licence under the Export 
Promotion Scheme for the full Yalue of rhe goods exported by 
them and in failing to do so had pracfoed discrimination -
--
1 
• \ 
A 
-__/ 
3s.c.:R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
against them) 
becau~e se\·eral 
other irr,potters 
during th~ 
identical period were givrn licences for the full value of goods 
exported. 
Held, 
that the fundamental right of a citizen to carry 
on any occupation, trade or business under Art. 19(l)(g) of 
the Co11stituti.on is not absolute; 
it is 
subject to reasonable 
restrictions which may· be imposed by the State in the interest 
of the general public. 
The right of the State to impose control in the larger 
interest of the general public on imports has accordingly 
not been denied; 
nor is the authority of the State to issue the 
Imports 
(Control) Order, 
1955 in exercise of the powers 
conferred by the Imports and Exports (Control) Act providi':'g 
for imposition of restrictions by permitting iinport of certrun 
goods only in accordance with the licences or customs permits 
granted by the Central Government, open to challenge. The 
authority to grant or refuse to grant the licence is conferred. 
upon high officers of the State and the grant of licence is 
governed by the Import Trade Control Policy and detai~ed 
provisions 
are 
made setting out the 
grounds 
on 
which 
licences 
may 
be refused, 
suspended or 
cancelled and 
provision to afford a hearing before action is taken is 
also 
made; 
thus 
the powers conferred under cl.3 of the Imports 
(Control) Order, l 955 are not uncanalised or arbitrary. 
The power granted to the licensing authority to grant 
licences only up to the maximum specified in cl.2 of the appendix 
42 is by itself not an. unreasonable restriction, 
nor will the 
notification directing 
scrutiny of all applications amount to 
imposing an unreasonable restriction. 
The clause invests the 
Controller with authority, 
it does not impose an obligation 
upon him enforceable at the instance of the exporter, to issue 
a licence for the amount (subject to the maximum 

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