Case Note & Summary
Background: The petitioner firm, engaged in manufacture of automobile parts, wires and cables, applied for import licences for stainless steel sheets and electrolytic copper wire bars for the periods April-March 1970 and April-March 1971. The respondents, authorities under the Import and Export Control Act, 1947, did not dispose of the applications within the usual three weeks, and later rejected them citing amended import policy prohibiting import of these materials for automobile parts. The petitioner filed writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking declaration that the rejection orders dated November 7, 1972 were void and mandamus directing issuance of licences. Facts: The petitioner made four applications on November 5, 1969, March 23, 1970, November 5, 1970 and November 6, 1970. After the first application, complaints of misutilization of imported material were received; an FIR was registered on December 12, 1969 under Section 5 of the Imports (Control) Act, 1947 read with Clause 5 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1948. The petitioner approached the Madras High Court, which directed respondents to dispose of applications expeditiously. Later, on September 29, 1972, the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports amended the Import Trade Control Policy prohibiting import of the materials for automobile parts; general notice was published on August 18, 1973. On November 7, 1972, the Deputy Chief Controller rejected the applications on these grounds. Legal Issues: The court considered whether the writ petition by a firm was maintainable under Article 32; whether the petitioner had a fundamental or vested right to import licences; whether the rejection could be challenged under Article 32 when the statute was intra vires; whether restrictions were reasonable under Article 19(6); whether there was violation of Article 14; and whether the authority lacked jurisdiction or acted with bad faith. Arguments: The respondents raised preliminary objections that the firm was not a citizen, no fundamental right to licence, policy could be changed, and licences could not be granted under amended policy. The petitioner contended that mandatory procedure was not followed, import policy in Red Book entitled them to licences, and instructions overriding policy were unconstitutional and violated Articles 14 and 19. Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court rejected the objection as to maintainability, holding that a firm stands for all partners who are citizens. However, it held that Article 32 jurisdiction is only for enforcement of fundamental rights; an applicant has no vested right to an import licence in terms of policy in force at time of application; Import Trade Control Policy is not statutory and can be changed by administrative orders; restrictions imposed in interest of general public and national economy are reasonable; no particulars of discriminatory treatment were provided; and Deputy Chief Controller had jurisdiction and delay was not in bad faith. Decision: The court dismissed all four writ petitions, holding that no fundamental right of the petitioner was violated, and no relief could be granted under Article 32.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 32 - Maintainability of Writ Petition by Partnership Firm - Constitution of India, Article 32 - A partnership firm stands for all partners collectively, so a petition filed in firm name was deemed filed by all partners who are citizens of India; the preliminary objection that the firm was not a citizen was rejected. Held that the writ petitions were maintainable to the extent the partners sought enforcement of their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) (Para 329H). B) Constitutional Law - Article 32 - Jurisdiction Limited to Fundamental Rights - Constitution of India, Article 32 - The Supreme Court reiterated that Article 32 can be invoked only for enforcement of fundamental rights, not other legal rights; a petitioner must show actual or threatened violation. The rejection of import licence applications could not be challenged under Article 32 where the statute was intra vires and no fundamental right to licence existed, following Ujjam Bai and Deputy Assistant Iron and Steel Controller cases. Held that the petitions were not maintainable for want of violation of fundamental rights (Paras 330A-B, 332B-C). C) Administrative Law - Import Trade Control Policy - Non-Statutory and Changeable - Import and Export Control Act, 1947, Section 3; Imports (Control) Order, 1948, Clause 5 - The Import Control Policy Statement (Red Book) was not a statutory document and no person could claim an enforceable right to licences based on it; it could be changed by administrative orders or executive instructions. The amendment prohibiting import of stainless steel sheets and electrolytic copper wire bars for automobile parts validly prevented grant of licences applied for. Held that the petitioner had no vested or fundamental right to import licences (Paras 330E-G, 331C). D) Constitutional Law - Article 19(1)(g) - Reasonable Restrictions - Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(g) - Restrictions on import imposed under Import and Export Control Act were reasonable and in interest of general public and national economy. Held that there was no unreasonable restriction on right to carry on trade or business (Para 331G). E) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Equal Protection - Constitution of India, Article 14 - No particulars were given of any similarly situated applicant granted import licence in similar circumstances; therefore no violation of Article 14. Held that the rejection was not discriminatory (Paras 332B-C). F) Administrative Law - Jurisdiction and Delay - Import and Export Control Act, 1947 - The Deputy Chief Controller had inherent jurisdiction to deal with and decline applications; delay in disposal was due to pending criminal proceedings and not undue or motivated by bad faith. Held that the rejection orders were not vitiated by lack of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice (Paras 331A-B, 331F).
Issue of Consideration
Whether rejection of import licence applications can be challenged under Article 32 alleging violation of Articles 14 and 19; whether petitioner firm had a vested or fundamental right to import licences; whether amended Import Trade Control Policy could override earlier policy; whether Deputy Chief Controller lacked jurisdiction or acted with bad faith; whether restrictions on import were reasonable.
Final Decision
Supreme Court dismissed all four writ petitions, holding that although petition by firm was maintainable as partners were citizens, the petitioner had no fundamental right to import licences; Import Trade Control Policy was non-statutory and could be amended by executive instructions; restrictions were reasonable; no violation of Articles 14 and 19; Deputy Chief Controller had jurisdiction and delay was not in bad faith.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction under Article 32 only for enforcement of fundamental rights
- no vested right to import licence in terms of policy in force at time of application
- Import Trade Control Policy is not statutory and can be changed by administrative orders or executive instructions
- restrictions imposed under Import and Export Control Act are reasonable in interest of general public and national economy
- Article 14 not violated absent particulars of similarly situated applicants
- firm stands for partners who are citizens
- writ petition maintainable.
