Case: Kishanchand Ramdas Gajwani Vs. Chief Controller, I and E, New Delhi

or deemed to have been made under the Act and Section 6 prescribed the Courts which were to take cognisance of such offences. On the 6th March. 1948 the Central Government in exercise of the powers under Section 3(1) of the Act issued a notified order which inter alia provided for debarring permanently or for a specified period licensees or importers from obtaining licences for import of goods. These provisions were sought to be applied by the import control authorities to the Petitioner and may be set out here :-(b) Where a licences is found to have contravened the order or the terms and conditions embodied in or accompanying a licence, the appropriate licensing authority or the Chief Controller of Imports may notify him that, without prejudice to any penalty to which he may-be liable under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (XVIII of 1947), or any other enactment for the time being in force, he shall either permanently or for a specified period be refused any further licence for import of goods.(c) Where an importer is found guilty of contravention of the proviso to the said notification or of any orders or terms of conditions embodied in or accompanying a licence or an application for a licence or any other import trade control rules or regulations duly promulgated, the appropriate licensing authority or the Chief Controller of Imports may notify him that without prejudice to any penalty to which he may be liable under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (XVIII of 1947), or any other enactment for the time being in force, he shall either permanently or for a specified period be refused any licence for import of goods.These provisions were impugned by the Petitioner as illegal and void, not being within the terms of Section 3(1) of the Act.4. Under Section 3(1) of the Act it was open to the Central Government to make provision for prohibiting, restricting or otherwise controlling in all cases or in specified classes of cases the import of goods of any specified description. Whatever is comprised within this power could be the subject matter of a notified order. But the scope of that power was strictly limited to the prohibiting, restricting or otherwise controlling of the imports of goods. The notified order could provide for the issue of licences, might prescribe the terms and conditions of the licences and might also provide for the suspension and cancellation of the licences under certain circumstances with a view to effectively provide for prohibiting, restricting or otherwise controlling the import of goods. But if the notified order travelled beyond the purview of this power the provision would certainly be bad as not within the Act.5. It was urged that the power contained in the impugned Clauses (b) & (c) was implicit within the power to make provision for prohibiting, restricting or otherwise controlling the import of goods, because if it were not so there would be no effective cheek or control on the licencees or importers and the policy of the Act would not be effectively carried out. A licencee or importer might obtain a quota certificate or a licence on the basis of fraudulent misrepresentations or forged documents which might be subsequently discovered to be such and then the import control authorities would be without a remedy if they were not invested with the power to impose any such punishment as is provided in the impugned clauses. A mere suspension or cancellation of the licence would not be enough and in the exercise of their discretion the import control authorities might as well deprive the licencee or importer thus found guilty, of an opportunity of being considered for further licences along with other bona fide applicants by making him disgorge the unlawful gains he had made earlier and equalising the distribution of the quotas for goods which would be permitted to be imported.6. It was on the other hand urged that even so, the import control authorities might be justified in refusing to grant a licence to the defaulting applicants but would not be justified in imposing a bar on them for any prospective licensing period, because it would be in the nature of a punishment or penalty and not a provision for effectively exercising the power of prohibiting, restricting or otherwise controlling the imports of goods. It was also urged that refusing to grant licences permanently or for specified periods to such defaulting applicants was certainly not within the legitimate exercise of such power as it would operate beyond the life of the Act and would also be liable to abuse at the hands of the import control authorities without the applicant being entitled as of right to have it scrutinised by higher authorities or by judicial tribunals.7. We are however absolved from the necessity of considering this question of the validity of these impugned provisions, because the order dated the 29th May 1953 is tantamount to a refusal to grant the Petitioner licences for the two items therein mentioned for the two licensing periods July-December 1952 and January-June 1953 and the order dated 11/12th January 1954 is tantamount to a refusal to grant the Petitioner licences for the other items therein mentioned for the three licensing periods July-December 1952, January-December 1953 and July-December 1953. As regards the licensing period July-December 1953 which was anticipated in the order dated the 29th May 1953, the learned Solicitor General appearing for the Respondent has undertaken to consider the Petitioners applications for licences to import the two commodities therein mentioned for this period as if they are still undisposed of and unaffected by the order dated the 29th May 1953.8. The result therefore is that the consideration of the question as to the validity of the impugned Clauses (b) & (c) is merely academical and we refuse to go into the same.9. The alternative contention of Petitioner that the orders complained against were mala fide has no substance in it and is summarily rejected.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]A licencee or importer might obtain a quota certificate or a licence on the basis of fraudulent misrepresentations or forged documents which might be subsequently discovered to be such and then the import control authorities would be without a remedy if they were not invested with the power to impose any such punishment as is provided in the impugned clauses. A mere suspension or cancellation of the licence would not be enough and in the exercise of their discretion the import control authorities might as well deprive the licencee or importer thus found guilty, of an opportunity of being considered for further licences along with other bona fide applicants by making him disgorge the unlawful gains he had made earlier and equalising the distribution of the quotas for goods which would be permitted to be imported.We are however absolved from the necessity of considering this question of the validity of these impugned provisions, because the order dated the 29th May 1953 is tantamount to a refusal to grant the Petitioner licences for the two items therein mentioned for the two licensing periods1953 and theorder dated 11/12th January 1954 is tantamount to a refusal to grant the Petitioner licences for the other items therein mentioned for the three licensing periodser 1953 and1953. As regards the licensing period1953 which was anticipated in the order dated the 29th May 1953, the learned Solicitor General appearing for the Respondent has undertaken to consider the Petitioners applications for licences to import the two commodities therein mentioned for this period as if they are still undisposed of and unaffected by the order dated the 29th May 1953.8. The result therefore is that the consideration of the question as to the validity of the impugned Clauses (b) & (c) is merely academical and we refuse to go into the same.9. The alternative contention of Petitioner that the orders complained against were mala fide has no substance in it and is summarily rejected.