9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (2) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r chronologically made and there is complete confusion in the narration of the story giving rise to the petitioner's claim. In several places, the petitions refer to facts which are both irrelevant and immaterial and, often enough, the petitioner is unable to restrain him. self from making unjustified and irrelevant suggestions against the authorities. Even in regard to the claim ultimately made by the petitioner, it is not easy to find what exactly the petitioner's grievance is and what particular writ he seeks to obtain from this Court. However, since the petitions purport to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court substantially under Art. 32 of the Constitution, it is necessary to deal with the relevant points in disposing of these petitions. Three of the petitions have been argued by Shri Bhatnagar in person. They are Petitions Nos. 423 and 164 of 1956 and No. 377 of 1955. Petitions Nos. 42 and 46 of 1956 have been argued by Shri Umrigar on behalf of the petitioner. The material facts which it is essential to mention are very few and they i.e within a very narrow compass. It appears that the petitioner obtained a licence for the import of soda ash only worth about Rs. 50 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one of the petitions before us. - He obtained an interim order of stay but the said order was ultimately vacated. Broadly stated, these are the facts which give rise to the present petitions. Though five petitions have been presented by the petitioner, his grievance substantially is against the confiscation of the consignments of soda ash and against the seizure of his licences by the investigating authorities: Each petition seeks to put the grievance of the petitioner in a different form and, though the prayers ultimately made are also not of the same pattern, in the main, the petitioner wants this Court to give him relief against what he regards as illegal seizure of the goods and against the virtual invalidation of his licences for import. The period during which the licences granted to him could have been operated upon has expired and the petitioner, in one of his petitions, seeks an order from this Court direct- ing the Government to revalidate the licences so as to allow the petitioner to import the article in question during the unexpired period of his licences. Though it would have been possible to deal with these petitions collectively by delivering a, common judgment, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal petition was not disposed of within the time mentioned by the Solicitor-General, the petitioner says that all the respondents are guilty of contempt. It is clear that the petitioners grievance and the prayer for a -writ are entirely misconceived. The petitioner is entirely in error in assuming that, on behalf of the Union of India, any undertaking was given that his revisional petition would be disposed of within a day or two. Indeed, the Solicitor- General fairly told us that, at the time when the petitioner's earlier application was disposed of, he had expressed the hope that the petitioner's revisional petition would be dealt with by the Central Government at an early date; but the expression of this hope had nothing to do with the undertaking which the Solicitor-General gave and which was included in the Court's order. The petitioner presumably thinks that the Court's order required that his revisional petition should be disposed of by the Central Government within a month. This assumption is entirely unwarranted. The period of one month which is mentioned in the order was the period granted to the petitioner to move 91this Court for Special Leave after the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and unrestricted freedom of export and import or that the policy of the Government in regard to export and import should be fixed and not changed according to the requirements of the country. It is in the light of this position that the policy statement in the Press Note has to be considered. The Press Note covers several commodities, but, since we are concerned with Light soda ash in the present case, it would be relevant to refer briefly to the - contents of the Press Note in regard to Light soda ash. In regard to this commodity, Government have decided, says the Press Note, that the import should be canalised through importer-stockiats who would be required to keep buffer stocks and effect sale in a manner so as to eliminate fluctuations in prices and supplies experienced by consumers in the recent past. The Government realized that, without canalisation of distribution of this commodity, consumers were always at the mercy of the importers and even distribution of the commodity to all parts of the country where it was needed was also difficult to obtain. That is why the Government decided to canalise the distribution of this. commodity with the assistance of two selling organisa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I.C.I. and the Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd., were amongst the applicants for licences, their competitors in the line may have found it difficult to fight with these two powerful rivals but that is very different from saying that, by the method of canalisation, the Government had introduced a monopoly in the import of the commodity in question. It is also important to emphasize that the petitioner is not even an established importer. He was granted a licence during the free period, and so it is difficult to understand his grievance that a monopoly had been created and that -he was thereby deprived of his fundamental right to carry on his trade.. Government found that the importers of soda ash resorted to malpractices leading to speculation, and violent fluctuations, in prices of the commodity. It was open to the Government, and indeed national interests made it their duty, to intervene and regulate the distribution of the commodity in a suitable manner. That is all that Government purported to do by the policy statement to which objection has been taken by the petitioner. Besides, it is difficult to entertain the argument from the present petitioner that the alleged monopoly has affected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner can invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution for obtaining this relief. We do not propose to discuss this matter elaborately because, in our opinion, the position in law is abundantly clear. The authorities have found that, though the licences were obtained by the petitioner in his name, he has been,trafficking in these licences, that the, consignments had been ordered by another individual Messrs. N. Jivanlal & Co., that the said individual holds no licence for import of soda ash and as such the consignments received by the said individual are liable to be confiscated. If the petitioner's grievance is that the view taken by the appropriate authorities in this matter is erroneous, that is not a matter which can be legitimately agitated before us in ,a petitition under Art. 32. It may perhaps be, as the learned Solicitor-General suggested, that the petitioner may have a remedy by suit for damages but that is a matter with which we are not concerned. If the goods have been seized in accordance with law and they have been seized as a result of the findings recorded by the relevant authorities competent to hold enquiry under the Sea Customs Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he subsequent Act of 1947 was to release, from the operation of the Import Act, articles which would have fallen under the said omitted provisions. R. 84 of the Defence of India Rules by sub-r. (1) defines export and import. ' Import " means bringing into British India by sea, land or air. " Export " -means taking out of British India by sea, land or air. Then sub-s. (2) provides: " The Central Government may by a notified order prohibit or restrict the import or export of all goods or goods of any specified description, from or to any specified person or class of persons Sub-r. (3) then provides: " The Central Government may by notified order 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,- (i) the import, export, carriage coastwise or shipment as ships' stores of all goods or goods of any specified description; (ii)the shipment of fresh water on seagoing vessels ; (iii)the bringing into any port or place in British India of goods of any specified description intended to be taken out of British India without being removed f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied description which are imported or exported, carried coastwise or shipped as ships' stores that fall within the mischief of the said provision. In other words, he reads the expression " carriage coastwise " and ",shipment as ships' stores " as constituting adjectival clauses governing the words "import" and "export". In our opinion, such a construetion is wholly unreasonable. We have no doubt that this provision has to be read disjunctively and distributively, and so read, the import. of goods of any specified description would attract the application of the said provision. If we bear in mind the definition of the words "import" and " export ", it would be obvious that articles that are carried coastwise would never fall within the cate. gory of either import or export. The assumption that the Legislature, wanted to release all kinds of goods from the application of s. 3 (1) (a) is, in our opinion, so completely inconsistent with, the plain and natural meaning of the material clause that we have no hesitation in rejecting Shri Umrigar's argument. If the words used in the clause are given their natural meaning, it is clear that the Legislature must have felt, in enac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the validity of the impugned section under the Imports and Exports Act is completely covered by the decision of this Court in Harishankar Bagla v. The State of Madhya Pradesh(1). In this case, so. -3 and 4 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, were attacked as ultra vires on the ground of delegated legislation. This challenge was repelled. In repelling the argument of delegated legislation, Mahajan Chief Justice who delivered the judgment of the Court conceded that " the Legislature must declare the policy of the law and the legal principles which are to control any given cases and must provide a standard to guide the officials or the body in power to execute the law". "The essential legislative function ", the judgment proceeds to add, " consists in the determination or choice of the legislative policy and of formally enacting that policy into a binding rule of conduct ". Then the learned Chief Justice referred to the fact that the Legislature has laid down such a principle and that principle is the maintenance or increase in supply of essential commodities and of securing equitable distribution and availability at fair prices. It was held that the principle wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Thus, if the preamble and the relevant section of the earlier Act are read in the light of the preamble of the present Act, it would be difficult to distinguish this Act from the Essential Supplies Act with which this Court was concerned in Harishankar Bagla's case Incidentally, we may also observe that in Pannalal Binjraj v. The Union of India ([1957] S.C.R. 233), where the vires of. a. 5 (7-A) of the Income. Tax Act were put in issue before this Court, the challenge was repelled and, during the-course of the judgment delivered on December 21, 1956, the previous history of the earlier Income-Tax Acts was taken into account to decide what policy could be said to underlie the provisions of the impugned section. The last argument of Shri Umrigar is patently untenable. No doubt Shri Umrigar began this argument by contending that the finding made against the petitioner that he was trafficking in his licences and that the consignments in question did not really belong to him was based on no evidence but ultimately he could not help conceding the fact that there were certain circumstances on which the appropriate authorities relied against the petitioner. The contention that a find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
