Case: Probhudas Morarjee Rajkotia &amp; Ors Vs. Union Of India &amp; Ors

respondents to grant to the petitioners import licences for the balance of Rs. 62,337 in accordance with the provisions of the Special Exports Promotion Scheme. Cause has been shown by the Attorney-General on behalf of the respondents to whom notice of rule was ordered to be given. 6. On behalf of the petitioners it was argued, in the first place, that the act of the respondents in declining to grant import licences for the balance of Rs. 62,337 was arbitrary and had unlawfully infringed the fundamental right of the petitioners to carry on their business. It is contended that under Cl. 5.4 of the Scheme the petitioners were entitled to import licences upto the "monetary extent mentioned in Annexure V. "It was conceded that the petitioners had no absolute right to the grant of a licence to the maximum amount prescribed and the Controller had the discretion to impose a restriction. It was submitted, however, that the discretion had to be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily. The legal proposition for which the petitioners contend is undoubtedly correct. The Licensing Authority would normally issue an import licence upto the monetary extent prescribed but, having regard to the special considerations such as difficult foreign exchange position or other matters which have a bearing on the general interest of the State, import licences for a smaller percentage may be granted to the exporters. It may be assumed that by the use of the expression "upto the monetary extent mentioned in Annexure V in Cl. 5.4., the authorities are not clothed with an arbitrary power to fix the percentage of the value of the goods exported for awarding an import licence. In the present case, however, the affidavit of the respondents indicates that the power has not been exercised in an arbitrary manner. In para 6 of the counter-affidavit the respondents said that complaints were made by the Ethiopian importer with regard to the quality and condition of machinery supplied by the petitioners. It appears that the Indian Embassy in Ethiopia got the machinery inspected and examined by a qualified engineer. The report of the engineer shows that the machinery being supplied by the petitioners was damaged, incomplete and defective. For the purpose of granting import licence the respondents have, therefore, not taken into account the total. F. O. B. value but imposed a suitable reduction in the import entitlement. The allegation of the respondents is supported by the report of the engineer which is Annexure III of the counter-affidavit. We accordingly reject the argument of the petitioners that the value of import entitlement was arbitrarily reduced by the Licensing Authority in this case. 7. It was next contended on behalf of the petitioners that Sri S. Than, Director (Foreign Trade) of the Ministry of Commerce had requested Sri N. C. Bhatt, the firms representative to grant a loan of Rs. 5,00,000 to T. A. I. D. L. to enable the latter to operate the machinery sold by the firm. It is alleged that the petitioners were not willing to advance the loan and it was for this reason that the respondents had not issued import licences to the firm for the balance of Rs. 62,887. The argument of the petitioners is that the refusal to advance a loan of Rs. 5,00,000 to T. A. I. D. L. was an extraneous and irrelevant circumstances and the conduct of the respondents in refusing to issue import licences for the balance of Rs. 62,337 was mala fide. The respondents have denied in the counter-affidavit that the refusal to grant the import licence for the balance of Rs. 62,337 was, in any way, connected with refusal of the petitioners to advance a loan of Rs. 5,00,000 to T. A. I. D. L. In para 16 of the counter-affidavit the respondents say that Sri Than was not directly concerned with the question of import entitlement. It is further stated that the request of Sri Than for the loan was made on January 29, 1965 but previous to that date the petitioners had already been granted import entitlement to the extent of Rs. 3,77,333 and the petitioners had imported scarce commodities like stainless steel against the grant of the import entitlement. We are, therefore, unable to accept the argument of the petitioners on this aspect of the case. 8. Lastly the argument was put forward by the petitioners that the failure of the respondents to grant licence for the balance of Rs. 62,337 is discriminatory and violates Art. 14 of the Constitution. In para 16 of the petition it is stated that "other Exporters and Importers covered by the said Schemes have been granted import licences and the failure of the respondents go grant the said licences to the firm is discriminatory and violates Art. 14 of the Constitution But it is not mentioned in the petition as to who were the persons who were similarly placed and who have been given import licences by the authorities. There is no specification of the persons who have been differentially treated. The plea of violation of equal protection of laws under Art. 14 of the Constitution has not been properly pleaded in this case. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that to make out a case of denial of the equal protection of the laws under Art. 14 of the Constitution, a plea of differential treatment is by itself not sufficient. An applicant pleading that Article 14 has been violated must make out that not only he had been treated differently from other but he has been so treated from persons similarly circumstanced without any reasonable basis, and such differential treatment is unjustifiably made-See Ramchand Jagdish Chand v. Union of India, 1962-3 SCR 72 : (AIR 1963 SC 563 ).It is manifest in the present case that the petitioners have not furnished sufficient particulars to justify the plea of infringement of Art. 14 of the Constitution. We accordingly hold that the case of the petitioners on this point should be rejected.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]The legal proposition for which the petitioners contend is undoubtedly correct. The Licensing Authority would normally issue an import licence upto the monetary extent prescribed but, having regard to the special considerations such as difficult foreign exchange position or other matters which have a bearing on the general interest of the State, import licences for a smaller percentage may be granted to the exporters. It may be assumed that by the use of the expression "upto the monetary extent mentioned in Annexure V in Cl. 5.4., the authorities are not clothed with an arbitrary power to fix the percentage of the value of the goods exported for awarding an import licence. In the present case, however, the affidavit of the respondents indicates that the power has not been exercised in an arbitrary manner. In para 6 of the counter-affidavit the respondents said that complaints were made by the Ethiopian importer with regard to the quality and condition of machinery supplied by the petitioners. It appears that the Indian Embassy in Ethiopia got the machinery inspected and examined by a qualified engineer. The report of the engineer shows that the machinery being supplied by the petitioners was damaged, incomplete and defective. For the purpose of granting import licence the respondents have, therefore, not taken into account the total. F. O. B. value but imposed a suitable reduction in the import entitlement. The allegation of the respondents is supported by the report of the engineer which is Annexure III of the counter-affidavit. We accordingly reject the argument of the petitioners that the value of import entitlement was arbitrarily reduced by the Licensing Authority in this caseThe respondents have denied in the counter-affidavit that the refusal to grant the import licence for the balance of Rs. 62,337 was, in any way, connected with refusal of the petitioners to advance a loan of Rs. 5,00,000 to T. A. I. D. L. In para 16 of the counter-affidavit the respondents say that Sri Than was not directly concerned with the question of import entitlement. It is further stated that the request of Sri Than for the loan was made on January 29, 1965 but previous to that date the petitioners had already been granted import entitlement to the extent of Rs. 3,77,333 and the petitioners had imported scarce commodities like stainless steel against the grant of the import entitlement. We are, therefore, unable to accept the argument of the petitioners on this aspect of the caseBut it is not mentioned in the petition as to who were the persons who were similarly placed and who have been given import licences by the authorities. There is no specification of the persons who have been differentially treated. The plea of violation of equal protection of laws under Art. 14 of the Constitution has not been properly pleaded in this case. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that to make out a case of denial of the equal protection of the laws under Art. 14 of the Constitution, a plea of differential treatment is by itself not sufficient. An applicant pleading that Article 14 has been violated must make out that not only he had been treated differently from other but he has been so treated from persons similarly circumstanced without any reasonable basis, and such differential treatment is unjustifiably made-See Ramchand Jagdish Chand v. Union of India, 1962-3 SCR 72 : (AIR 1963 SC 563 ).It is manifest in the present case that the petitioners have not furnished sufficient particulars to justify the plea of infringement of Art. 14 of the Constitution. We accordingly hold that the case of the petitioners on this point should be rejected