TMI Blog1957 (2) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot constituting legal evidence. At the highest it may be said that there are some circumstances on which Shri Umrigar wants to rely in favour of the bonafides of his client whereas there is. a large number of circumstances against him. If all the appropriate authorities, on considering these circumstances, concurrently found against the petitioner, that obviously is not a matter which can be legitimately agitated in the present petition. That is why we do not propose to deal with this aspect of the matter any further. Appeal dismissed. - W.P.(C) 377 OF 1955 - - - Dated:- 21-2-1957 - P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, SUDHI RANJAN DAS, T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR AND P. BHUVNESHWAR SINHA, JJ. JUDGMENT This is a group of five petitions filed by the petitioners Messrs Bhatnagars Co. Private Ltd. In all these petitions, the petitioner Shri B. S. Bhatnagar, Managing Director of the above company, seeks to obtain appropriate writs from this Court mainly in respect of orders which have been passed by the Sea Customs Authorities against the petitioner. The petitioner seems to feel a grievance that, in the matter of licences which had been issued to him for importing 'soda ash, he has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay. The complaint made against the petitioner that he was trafficking in licences was confirmed by this investigation. It transpired that a person carrying on business in the name of Messrs. N. Jivanlal Co., had a free hand in dealing with the licences of the petitioner and that the petitioner used only to receive commission for the imports that he allowed to be made in the name of Messrs Bhatnagars Co., Ltd. In regard to the two consignments of 100 tons and 20 tons of soda 'ash respectively, it was found on an inspection of the documents that the same had been imported by Messrs N. Jivanlal Co., and since Messrs N. Jivanlal Co., held no licence, the consignments were seized by the Collector of Customs. The offices of the petitioner and Messrs N. Jivanlal Co., were raided during the course of this investigation on November 7,1952 and February 6, 1953, respectively. The goods arrived in Bombay in March and April 1953 and they were confiscated by the Collector of Customs in May and June 1953. Subsequently, the documents including the licences which had been seized were returned to the petitioner. The confiscation of the goods was challenged by the petitioner by preferri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had come before this Court for hearing on March 24, 1955. Shri K. R. Chaudhury appeared for the petitioner before this Court. The order passed by this Court would show that the learned Solicitor-General of India made a statement to the Court indicating that the goods which had been confiscated by the Customs Authorities would not be, sold or otherwise dealt with for a month from the date of the communication to the petitioner of the final order that the Central Government may pass in the revisional petition preferred by him before them. Acting on this under. taking, this Court allowed the petitioner a period of one month from the date of the communication to him of the final order which the Central Government might pass on his revisional petition to enable him to file a petition for Special Leave to appeal if he was so advised. Then the order recorded the undertaking given by the Solicitor-General. Subject to this order the petition was dismissed. However, no order was passed as to costs. It is common ground that for several months thereafter the revisional petition preferred by the petitioner to the Central Government was not disposed of. Ultimately it was dismissed. The petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as also not paused to consider how the other respondents could be guilty of contempt. We have no hesitation in holding that the prayer for a writ in respect of the alleged contempt made by the petitioner in this petition is thoroughly unjustified and, we regret to add, wholly irresponsible. This was the only point, which the petitioner urged before us in this petition. The result is the petition fails and it must be dismissed with costs. In Petition No. 164 of 1956, so far as we were able to gather, the petitioner's grievance is in respect of a policy statement made by the Government in the Press Note dated February 3, 1955 and Public Notice No. 25-ITC (PN)/ 56 dated June 30, 1956. The petitioner's contention appears to be that the policy enunciated in these two documents amounts to a monopoly and he wants this Court to issue appropriate writs terminating this monopoly and to ensure to the petitioner his fundamental right of carrying on his trade and business. In our opinion, this petition is also entirely misconceived and there is no substance in the contention raised by the petitioner. It is hardly necessary to emphasize that, in modern times, the export and import policy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... culars in regard to the import of soda ash and other commodities. Tenders were invited and cl. 4 of the Public Notice shows that the offerer whose offer was accepted by the Chief Controller of Imports would be required to enter into 'a contract of sale within ten days of the acceptance of the offer with the importer-distributor selected by the Government in that behalf, No doubt discretion was left to the Chief Controller of Imports to reject any offer without assigning any reason. Subject to the terms and conditions set out in the Notice, if a contract was concluded, an import licence for the quantity contracted to be purchased would be issued in favour of the buyer subject to such conditions as might be imposed by the Government of India in that behalf. It appears that, prior to 1953, import licences were freely granted. In 1953, licences began to be granted to established importers subject to certain conditions. It also appears that Government decided from time to time the total quantity of the specified commodity which should be imported. Then the extent of the business of the applicant for licences during the prescribed period was taken into account and the total amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and it communicates to the petitioner the decision of the Chief Controller that no licence or customs clearance permit would be granted to him against his application for and upto the licensing period July 1953. The petitioner was, however, told that his applications for January-June 1954 licensing period would be dealt with in the normal course according to the policy contained in the Red Book. Then the order adds that it had been decided that re-validation of the licences mentioned in Annexure 'A' to the petitioner's advocate's letter on April 20, 1954, could not be allowed. That is why the said licences were returned to the petitioner. It is this latter part of the order by which the petitioner feels aggrieved and against which the petitioner seeks remedy by the present petition. The petitioner's case is that, since he was granted licences which were to be alive for one' year from February 13, 1952, the illegal seizure of the licence and the unauthorised confiscation of the consignments in question caused considerable. prejudice to him. The return of the licences is poor consolation to the petitioner. because the period during which the licences were to o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct does not apply to soda ash and that it is every citizen's right to import and export this commodity without a licence. If that be the true position, confiscation of the two consignments would be illegal, and so, he wants an appropriate writ from this Court against the Central Government. In the alternative, he argues that the legislation which authorises the issue of licences amounts to a delegated legislation and -as such' is invalid. Again, if legislation is invalid on the ground' alleged, confiscation of the two consignments would be invalid and the petitioner would be entitled to a writ. Failing these two contentions, Shri Umrigar argues that the conclusion of the relevant authorities that his client was trafficking in licences is based on 'no legal evidence and must, therefore, be reversed by this Court and appropriate relief given to him on the basis that the petitioner had obtained licences bona fide for his own personal use and the contrary view taken by the relevant authorities and the subsequent confiscation of the consignments were illegal and ultra vires. We would now briefly deal with these three points in the order in which they were urged before us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... III of 1947. Before dealing with this argument, however, it would be convenient to set out the said section as under: 3. Powers to prohibit or restrict imports and exports : (1)The Central Government may, by order published in the official Gazette, make provision for prohibiting. restricting or otherwise controlling, in all cases or in specified classes of cases, and subject to such exceptions, if any, as may be made by or under the order,- (a)the import, export, carriage coastwise or shipment as ships' stores of goods of any specified description ; (b)the bringing into any port or place in India of goods of any specified description intended to be taken out of India without being removed from the ship or conveyance in which they are being carried. (2) All goods to which any order under sub-section (1) applies shall be deemed to be goods of which the import or export has been prohibited or restricted under section 19 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 (VIII of 1878), and all the provisions of that Act shall have effect accordingly, except that section 183 thereof shall have effect as if for the word shall therein the word may were substituted. (3) Notwithstanding anything ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of opinion in the approach to the question of dealing with such a challenge, some principles may be said to be fairly well settled. There is no doubt that legislation which is conditional, properly so-called, must be distinguished from legislation which is delegated. Shri Umrigar concedes that where the Legislature provides and lays down principles underlying the provisions of a parti- cular statute and also affords guidance for the implementation or enforcement of the said principles, it is open to the Legislature to leave the actual implementation or enforcement to its chosen delegate. The time when the provision should be implemented, the period during which it should be implemented or the place where it should be applied can, according to him, in appropriate oases be validly left by the Legislature to its delegate. He, however, contends that, in the impugned Act, the Legislature does not lay down principle and gives no guidance to the delegate while leaving the implementation of the statutory provisions to him and consequently the validity of the legislative enactment suffers from a serious infirmity on the ground that the Legislature has surrendered its legislative power in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egate. Turning to the impugned sections of the present Act, it is necessary to remember that the present Act purports to continue for a limited period powers to prohibit or control imports and exports which had already been enacted by the Defence of India Act and the Rules framed thereunder. In other words, this Act does not purport to enact the material provisions for the first time but it purports to continue the previously existing provisions in that behalf and so it would be legitimate to consider the preamble of the predecessor Act and relevant provisions in it to find out whether the Legislature has laid down clearly the policy underlying that Act and has enunciated principles for the guidance of those to whom authority to implement the Act has been delegated. The preamble to the present Act says that it was expedient to continue for a limited period powers to prohibit, restrict or otherwise control imports and exports. The preamble to the Defence of India Act refers to the emergency which had arisen when the Act was passed and refer;, inter alia, to the necessity to take special measures to ensure the public safety and public interest. Section 2 of the said Act further provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
