RUP DIAMONDS & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 13 · Decided: 02-01-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

! 
~. 
' 
\~-' 
RUP DIAMONDS & ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 2, 1989 
IR.S. PATHAK, CJ AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, J.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 32 and 226-lmports and 
Exports Controller-Declining to revalidate and endorse six Imprest 
licences-Unexplained and inordinate delay in filing writ petition-
Court-Whether can decline to interfere. 
Petitioners, a recognised Export House for purposes of the 
Import-Export Policy, 1982-83 were granted six imprest licences for the 
import of uncut and unset diamonds with the obligation to fulfil certain 
export commitment for the export of India, of cut and polished 
diamonds. They did not seek the revalidation and endorsement for 
OGL items within the time prescribed under Paragraph 185(4) of the 
Import-Export Policy 1982-83 (AM 1983). Only in the year 1986, after a 
lapse of several years from the completion of their export-obligations, 
they sought such revalidation and endorsement. The Joint Chief 
Controller of Imports and Exports, by two orders dated 5.8.1986 and 
9.4.1986, declined the request, on grounds of inordinate delay in seek-
ing revalidation and endorsement, and on merits and permissibility of 
the claim. 
· 
In the Writ Petition, the petitioners challenged these orders 
contending that in view of the grant of revalidation of imprest licences 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
of two other Export Houses, consequent upon their writ petitions being 
allowed by the High Court and the Special Leave Petitions of the 
F 
Government against the decision being dismissed by the Supreme 
Court, rejection by the authorities of the petitioners' claim for similar 
revalidation, and endorsement of their imprest licences, was discrimi-
natory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as the 
grounds for refusal put forward by the authorities in those cases were 
exactly similar to those preferred in the case of the petitioners, and 
G 
those grounds had been found to be insufficient in law to support the 
refusal, and that there was no basis for any distinction to be made in the 
case of petitioners who had made their demand for revalidation after 
the High Court's decision in one of those cases. 
Dismissing the Writ Petition, 
H 
13 
14 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: Petitioners are re-agitating claims which they had not 
pursued for several years. They were not vigilant hut were content to he 
dormant and.close to sit on the fence till somebody else's case came to be 
decided. Their case cannot be considered on the anology of one, where a 
law had been declared unconstitutional and void by a Court, so as to 
B enable persons to recover monies paid under the compulsion of a law 
later so declared void. There is also an unexplained, inordinate delay in 
preferring this writ petition which is brought after almost a year after 
the first rejection. [18B-C] 
Apart altogether from the merits of the other grounds for rejec-
tion, the inordinate delay in preferring the claim before the authorities 
C as also the delay in filing the writ petition before this Court does not 
pursuade this Court to interfere in this matter. [18E) 
The rejection to this Writ Petition shaU not prejudice petitioners' 
case in the appeal, if such a right of appeal is available under the appeal 
D procedures in the policy. [ 19A] 
E 
Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller, I & E, 1969(2) SCR 861, refer-
red to. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 411of1987. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
' . 
+----
T. U. Mehta, A. Subba Rao, P. Parmeshwaran, Harish N. Salve, 
N.D. Garg, Rajiv K. Garg, P.H. Parekh, Ms. Ayesha Misra and M.N. 
Shroff for the appearing parties. 
~ _ 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
VENKATACHALIAH, J. By this petition under Art. 32 of the 
Constitution, Messrs. Rup Diamonds, a Registered Export House, 
assail the validity of the decisions dated 9.4.1986 and 5.8.1986 of the 
G Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports declining to re-validate 
and endorse six Imprest Licences for import of Open General Licence 
items upon the fulfillment by the petitioners of their export obligations 
-Jr. 
under the Imprest-Licences. Petitioners seek issue of appropriate writs 
to the Authorities to re-validate the six Imprest Licences, with 
appropriate endorsement for the import of open General items under 
H the Import Export Policy of 1982-83 (A.M. 1~83). 
' c· 
~-· 
RUP DIAMONDS v. U.0.1. [VENKATACHALIAH, J.J 
15 
This writ petiti

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