Case: Pema Chibar Alias Preamabhai Chhibabhaitangal Vs. Union Of India And Others

continued that there was recognition of liabilities arising therefrom by the new sovereign. That is one aspect of the matter which in our opinion conclusively shows that the new sovereign did not recognise the rights arising from licences of the kind with which we are dealing in the present petition, and, therefore the petitioner would have no right under these licences for they were never recognised by the new sovereign. In this view of the matter, the petition must fail. 8. But this is not all. The Ordinance and the Act of 1962 on which the petitioner relies came into force from March 5, 1962. It is true that they provided for the continuance of old laws but that could only be from the date from which they came into force, i.e., from March 5, 1962. There was a period between December 20, 1961 and March 5, 1962 during which it cannot be said that the old laws necessarily continued so far as the rights and liabilities between the new subjects and the new sovereign were concerned. So far as such rights and liabilities are concerned, (we say nothing here as to the rights and liabilities between subjects and subjects under the old laws), the old laws were apparently not in force during this interregnum. That is why we find in S. 7 (1) of the Ordinance, a provision to the effect that all things done and all action taken (including any acts of executive authority, proceedings, decrees and sentences) in or with respect to Goa, Daman and Diu on or after the appointed day and before the commencement of this Ordinance, by the Administrator or any other officer of Government, whether civil or military or by any other person acting under the orders of the Administrator or such officer, which have been done or taken in good faith and in a reasonable belief that they were necessary for the peace and good Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, shall be as valid and operative as if they had been done or taken in accordance with law. Similarly we have a provision in S. 9(1) of the Act, which is in exactly the same terms.These provisions in our opinion show that as between the subjects and the new sovereign, the old laws did not continue during this interregnum and that is why things done and action taken by various authorities during this period were validated as if they had been done or taken in accordance with law. A doubt was raised as to the power of the Military Governor to issue a proclamation like the one he did on December 30, 1961, to which we have already referred. That doubt in our opinion is cleared by these provisions which make all such orders as if they had been made in accordance with law. The proclamation of December 30, 1961 which clearly showed what kind of import licences would be recognised must be held to be in accordance with law and that means that no imports were recognised except those covered by the proclamation. 9. Our attention is also drawn to certain other orders passed after March 5, 1962 in connection with imports. One such order was passed on April 2, 1962 which stated that imports into Goa. Daman and Diu from abroad will be governed by the following principles :- (1) in cases where letters of credit were opened with the Banco Nacional Ultramarino on or before 18th December 1961, or goods were shipped prior to 20th December 1961, imports will be allowed and the necessary foreign exchange provided. (2) * * * * (3) * * * * (4) * * * * It is, however, admitted on behalf of the petitioner that his case is not covered by even this order of April 2, 1962 and he cannot, therefore, use it as recognition of his right to import under these licences. 10. Then on April 11, 1962, another order was issued in the following terms :-"Notwithstanding anything contained in any decree notification, rule, etc., it is hereby directed that all goods imported into Goa, Daman and Diu from abroad by freight or post shall require a valid import licence." These orders, therefore, after Mach 5, 1962, also clearly show that there was no recognition at any stage of the kind of licences which the petitioner held from the former Portuguese Government. The petitioner, therefore, in view of all these facts and circumstances cannot rely on the fact that old laws were continued as from March 5, 1962; nor can he rely on the orders of April 2 and 11, 1962, for his case is not covered by them, even though these orders show some relation of the conditions as compared to the proclamation of December 30, 1961.Thus there was never any recognition of the right of the petitioner under the licences, which he held by the new sovereign. He is, therefore, not entitled to ask this Court to compel the Government of India to honour the licences in dispute in the present petition. 11. As for Regulation No. XII of 1962, that is also of no help to the petitioner. The laws repealed thereby (as between the sovereign and the subjects) were in force only from March 5, 1962. Section 4 (2) on which reliance is placed would have helped the petitioner if his licences had been granted on March 5, 1962 or thereafter. But as his licences are of a date even anterior to the acquisition of the Portuguese territories, S. 4 (2) of the Regulation cannot help him. The contention under this head must also be-rejected. 12. As to Art. 14, it is enough to say that it was for the petitioner to establish that there was discrimination in his case. He has completely failed to do so, for besides certain vague assertions in the petition, there is nothing to prove that other licenes were recognised in similar circumstances. The contention under Art. 14 must fail.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]In the absence of such a provision it would not in our opinion be right to say that merely because the old laws were continued there was recognition of the liabilities of the old State by the new State. We have therefore come to the conclusion that merely because the old laws were continued, it cannot necessarily be inferred that the new State recognised and assumed all liabilities of the former State. On the other hand if we refer to the proclamation of the Military Governor of December 30, 1961, we immediately see that only certain types of imports to which we have already referred were recognised by the new State and not others.In the face of that proclamation of December 30, 1961, it would in our opinion be impossible to infer from the mere fact that the old laws were continued that there was recognition of liabilities arising therefrom by the new sovereign. That is one aspect of the matter which in our opinion conclusively shows that the new sovereign did not recognise the rights arising from licences of the kind with which we are dealing in the present petition, and, therefore the petitioner would have no right under these licences for they were never recognised by the new sovereign. In this view of the matter, the petition must failThese provisions in our opinion show that as between the subjects and the new sovereign, the old laws did not continue during this interregnum and that is why things done and action taken by various authorities during this period were validated as if they had been done or taken in accordance with law. A doubt was raised as to the power of the Military Governor to issue a proclamation like the one he did on December 30, 1961, to which we have already referred. That doubt in our opinion is cleared by these provisions which make all such orders as if they had been made in accordance with law. The proclamation of December 30, 1961 which clearly showed what kind of import licences would be recognised must be held to be in accordance with law and that means that no imports were recognised except those covered by the proclamationThe petitioner, therefore, in view of all these facts and circumstances cannot rely on the fact that old laws were continued as from March 5, 1962; nor can he rely on the orders of April 2 and 11, 1962, for his case is not covered by them, even though these orders show some relation of the conditions as compared to the proclamation of December 30, 1961.Thus there was never any recognition of the right of the petitioner under the licences, which he held by the new sovereign. He is, therefore, not entitled to ask this Court to compel the Government of India to honour the licences in dispute in the present petition11. As for Regulation No. XII of 1962, that is also of no help to the petitioner. The laws repealed thereby (as between the sovereign and the subjects) were in force only from March 5, 1962. Section 4 (2) on which reliance is placed would have helped the petitioner if his licences had been granted on March 5, 1962 or thereafter. But as his licences are of a date even anterior to the acquisition of the Portuguese territories, S. 4 (2) of the Regulation cannot help him. The contention under this head must also be-rejected12. As to Art. 14, it is enough to say that it was for the petitioner to establish that there was discrimination in his case. He has completely failed to do so, for besides certain vague assertions in the petition, there is nothing to prove that other licenes were recognised in similar circumstances. The contention under Art. 14 must fail.