LexPEMA CHIBAR ALIAS PREMABHAI CHHIBABHAI TANGAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
A
PEMA CHIBAR ALIAS PREMABHAI CIIHIBABHAI
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
TANGAL
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
August 9, 1965
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO,
M. HlDAYATULLAH, J. C. SHAH ANDS. M. SIKRI, JJ.]
Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration)
Ordinance (2 of 1961).
s. 7(1); Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act (1 of 1962), ss.
5 and 9(1) and Goa,
Daman and Diu
(Laws)
Regulation
(12 of
1962), s. 4(2)-Scope of-Import. licences granted before co11quest-
Right if can be enforced.
The petitioner a resident of Dan1an a former Portuguese territory in
India, became a citizen of India on the acquisition of that territory by
the Government of India on the 20th December 1961, by conquest.
He
had
obtained licences between 9th October and 4th December 1961,
for the import of various goods.
They \Vere valid for a period of 180
days and could be renewed for a further period.
On 30th December,
1961 the Military Governor of the conquered territory, issued a Pro-
clamation \Vith respect to arrangements for trade, recognising only certain
types of imports. The imports. of the petitioner under his licences were
not among those recognized, and so· he tried to obtain extension of the
period covered by the licences.
Having failed to do so he filed a petition
under Art. 32 of the Constitution, contending inter alia that : (i) under
the Goa, Dan1an and Diu (Administration) Ordinance, 1961 promul-
gated on 5th March 1962 and the Goa, Daman and Diu ·(Administration)
Act, 1962, which replaced the Ordinance,
1thc previous laws in those
territories were to continue as from 5th March 1962 and therefore
it amounted to recognition by the Government of India of all rights
flowing from the previous laws including the· petitioner's right under·
the licences; (ii) s. 4(2) of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Laws) Regulation,
1962, which came into force on November 22, 1962, preserved any right,
privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the
repealed law, and therefore the P':.!titioner's right under the licences which
were issued under the former Jaws as to export and import which \Vere
repealed, were preserved; and (iii) the
petitione:r
\Vas
discriminated
against in violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution.
HELD : (i) The pe!itioner could not rely on
the mere
fact that
the old laws were con'inued, because, there was naver any recognition
of the right of the petitioner, under the licences which he held, by
the Government of India which was a nerw sovereign. The petitioner·
was therefore not entitled to ask the Court to compel
the
respondent
to honour the licences. [365 H; 366 A-BJ
In cases of acquisition of territory by conquest, the residents of
the territory did not carry with them the rights which they possessed as.
subject of the ex-sovereign, and that as subjects of the
new sovereign
they had only such rights as are granted or recognised by the new
sovereign.
In the face of the proclamation of the Military Governor it
would be impossible to infer from the mere fact that the old laws were
continued that there was recognition of otherr liabHities arising therefrom-
by the new sovereign. [360 D; 364 B-C)
Beside•, the old laws were not in force from 20th December 1961
to 5th March 1962.
Seotion 7(1) of Uie Ordinance aod s. 8(1) of the-
358
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1966] I S.C.R.
Act, show that as between the subj~cL-; and the ne\v sovereign, the old
la\vs did nut conlinue in that interregnum and that
was
v.:hy
it
was
provided that things done and action taken by various authorities were
vaJ;dated.
Therefore.
the
proclamation
o!
30th
Dt!ccmber
which
showed \lo·hat kind o[ in1port liccnc·:s
y,ould
he
rCCObrnised,
\l.·a::.
in
acwrdancc v.ith la\v, v.·h1ch moans tha: th-.! petitioner's imports \\'ere not
rccogn1Scd. [364 JI; 365 A, BJ
Staie of Rajasrha11 v. Shyam/al, ll964] 7 S.C.R., 174, explained.
(ii) As chc petitioner's licence<> \vc:·c of a date c.vcn anterior to the
ac~iuisition of the former Portuguese tc;ritorics. s. 4{~) of the Regulation
\vould not help him.
'Ibat section \~·ould have h-:lpcd hi1u if his Jiccnces
had been granted on or after 5th \larch 1962, bcca11<e the Regulation
repeals la\\'S which we:-.: in
fore~ only from that date and the section
.. , .. ,_, rights acquired under them.(366 B-C]
(iii) The petitioner failed to establish that there WJS any discrimi-
nation. l366 DJ
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ PetitiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.