Case: J. Fernandes &amp; Co Vs. The Deputy Chief Controller Of Imports &amp; Exports And Ors

regulations for the peace, progress and good Government of the Union Territory. In the present case no Presidential Regulation was relied on by either side.24. Parliament has power under Article 246 (4) to make laws with respect to any Union Territory. The executive power of the Union under Article 73 (1) (a) shall extend to the matters with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws.The Union Government has, therefore, power to issue executive directions to the Administrator of a Union Territory. So long as there is no conflict between a direction issued by the Central Government and a Presidential Regulation made under Art. 240, the Administrator of a Union Territory is bound to carry out the orders and directions given by the Central Government. The decision of this Court in Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab. AIR 1974 SC 2192 is that the powers conferred on the President by Article 239 are to be exercised by him on the aid and advice of the Cabinet. Therefore, the directions issued by the Central Government are valid because of the combined effect of Article 73 and Article 246 which confer power on the Union executive to exercise powers in respect of matters with respect to which Parliament has competence to make laws.25. In the present case, the Chief Civil Administrator himself declared in a Press Note dated 2 April 1962 the terms and conditions subject to which import licence would be granted. The alleged revalidation of licence No. 47 in the month of May, 1962 took place subsequent to the Press Note and contrary to the terms and conditions. It was really not a revalidation of the licence but an extension of the period. If the licence itself was defective, there could not be any validation of the licence as was contended for by the petitioner.26. There is no particular statute or Portuguese law which confers any right on the petitioner to get an import licence in the circumstances in which it was issued to him. Even if pre-liberation laws continued to be in force with effect from 5 March, 1962 that would not take away power of the Central Government to modify or alter the pre-existing procedure for issuing import licences, after liberation, in exercise of its executive powers under Article 73 (1) of the Constitution.27. The petitioner contended that the original concern was an importer registered with the Junta prior to December, 1961. The respondents denied that allegation. The petitioner in the rejoinder alleged that it is to be presumed that the original importer must have, been registered with the Junta, prior to the liberation. No materials were shown to establish that the original concern was a regular registered importer. The contention on behalf of the respondents that the licence was issued without following the regular procedure and by inadvertence or mistake is borne by the facts and circumstances of the code particularly because the Chief Civil Administrator had no authority to issue any import licences in contravention of the directions of the Central Government issued on 3 January, 1962.28. The petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in M/s. Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports AIR 1974 SC 1539 , in support of the proposition appearing at page 1542 of the Report. The proposition stated there is that one of the instances in relation to laws regulating the citizens right to carry on trade or business guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (g) may be catalogued as where the impugned action is based on a misconstruction of the intra vires statute or is so contrary to the established procedure or rules of natural Justice that it results in violation of a fundamental right. In the case of M/s. Andhra industrial Works (supra) the proposition which was extracted from Ujjambais case, (1963) 1 SCR 778 = (AIR 1962 SC 1621 ) supra) is that an order of assessment made by an authority under a taxing statute which is intra vires, cannot be challenged under Article 32 as repugnant to Article 19 (1) (g) on the sole ground that it a based on a misconstruction of a provision of the Act or of a notification issued thereunder. In Ujjambais case supra) it was said that when assessment proceedings are repugnant to rules of natural justice there is an infringement of the right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (f) and 19 (1) (g). In support of that proposition reference was made to Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. S. R. Sarkar, (1961) 1 SCR 379 = (AIR 1961 SC 65 ), K. T. Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala, 1961) 3 SCR 77 = (AIR 1961 SC 552 ). and Madanlal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, (1962) 1 SCR 823 = (AIR 1961 SC 1565 ).29. In the case. of Andhra Industrial Works, AIR 1974 SC 1539 (supra) an objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that the petition was not competent because there was no violation of fundamental rights. This Court upheld that objection and said that neither the Imports and Exports (Control) Act nor any order thereunder was alleged to be ultra vires nor was the Import Control Policy impeached.A policy statement was held to be not a statutory document, No Person can on the of basis of a policy statement claim a right to the grant of an import licence. This Court also held that there is no absolute right much less a fundamental right, to the grant of an import licence.30. This Court in Deputy Asst. Iron and Steel Controller v. L. Manickchand, (1972) 3 SCR 1 =(AIR 1972 SC 935 ) held that no one has any vested right to an import licence in terms of the policy in force at the time of his application There is no misconstruction of any statutory provision in the present case. In the present case it cannot be said that there is no authority of law to reject an application for import licence.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]14. The contention of the petitioner that six traders have been granted licences whereas the petitioner was not, and, there was violation under Article 14 is unacceptable. These six licences were issued before liberation between the period 12 February, 1961 and 4 December, 1961. The six licences were issued prior to the liberation of Goa. The liberation of Goa was on 19-12-1961. On 20 December, 1961 Goa became a Union Territory. The licence on which the petitioner bases the claim was dated 12 February 1962.Thepetitioner was notadmittedly issued any licence before the liberation of Goa. Between the liberation of Goa and the application of the petitioner for licence, the Government of India issued on 3 January, 1962 to the Chief Civil Administrator, Goa certain directions regarding the issue of import licence.The original concern had not opened letter of credit before 18 December, 1961 and the goods in question were not shipped prior to 20 December, 1961. The application of the petitioner was subsequent to the issue of directions dated 3 January, 1962 by the Government of India that imports would be allowed if letter of credit had been opened before 18 December, 1961 or shipment had taken place before 20 December, 1961.The classification of persons with reference to the grant of import licence depending on whether it was granted before the liberation or after the liberation of Goa is a valid classification based on intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object of import licence policy. There is no violation of Article 14. The petitioner stands on a different footing and does not belong to the class of persons who were given import licences during the Portuguese Rule before the liberation of Goa.The petitioner cannot draw any sustenance either from Section 7 of the Ordinance or Section 9 of the Act for three reasons. First the scope of validation is limited to such acts which were done in good faith and with the reasonable belief that they were necessary for peace and good Government. The licence was issued in contravention of lawful direction given by the Government of India. The licence was not issued in good faith or in a reasonable belief that they were necessary for the peace and good Government of Goa, Daman and Diu. Second, the validation was not intended to protect breaches of directions issued by the newIn the present case, the Chief Civil Administrator himself declared in a Press Note dated 2 April 1962 the terms and conditions subject to which import licence would be granted. The alleged revalidation of licence No. 47 in the month of May, 1962 took place subsequent to the Press Note and contrary to the terms and conditions. It was really not a revalidation of the licence but an extension of the period. If the licence itself was defective, there could not be any validation of the licence as was contended for by the petitioner.26. There is no particular statute or Portuguese law which confers any right on the petitioner to get an import licence in the circumstances in which it was issued to him. Even if pre-liberation laws continued to be in force with effect from 5 March, 1962 that would not take away power of the Central Government to modify or alter the pre-existing procedure for issuing import licences, after liberation, in exercise of its executive powers under Article 73 (1) of thepetitioner in the rejoinder alleged that it is to be presumed that the original importer must have, been registered with the Junta, prior to the liberation. No materials were shown to establish that the original concern was a regular registered importer.This Court in Deputy Asst. Iron and Steel Controller v. L. Manickchand, (1972) 3 SCR 1  =(AIR 1972 SC 935  ) held that no one has any vested right to an import licence in terms of the policy in force at the time of his application There is no misconstruction of any statutory provision in the present case. In the present case it cannot be said that there is no authority of law to reject an application for import licence.