Case: Durga Prashad Vs. Chief Controller Of Imports &amp; Exports &amp; Ors

The appellant was carrying on business of export and import, and exported goods of the value of Rupees 8,10,325/-, F. O. B. value, Rupees 8,03,530.45, during the period August 25, 1958 to September 29, 1958. On November 12, 1958, the appellant applied for an import licence for art silk yarn of the F. O. B. value of Rs. 8,03,530.45 Np. under the Export Promotion Scheme. The Export Promotion Scheme was discontinued with effect from March 6, 1959. On October 9, 1959, import licence of the value of Rs. 3,27,841/- only was issued to the appellant by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay, His appeal against this order was rejected by the Joint Chief Controller on March 4, 1960. It is alleged by the appellant that he was not given a hearing. The appellant filed a second appeal to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, and this was dismissed on April 22, 1961. Here again it is alleged that no hearing was given to the appellant. He filed a representation against the order dated April 22, 1961, and on that representation a supplementary import licence for import of art silk yearn of the value of Rs. 30,000/- was issued to the appellant. This exhausted all the remedies he had under para 85 of the order relating to the Export Promotion Scheme, but be instead of filing a writ chose to wait, The appellant apparently approached the Minister of International Trade by letter dated April 6, 1964 - this is the letter referred to in the letter of the Private Secretary to the Minister of International Trade - and the Private Secretary, vide his letter dated April 16, 1964, wrote to him saying that his letter had been passed on to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi, and if so desired the appellant may see him in the matter. Apparently the Chief Controller invited him and on June 22, 1964, he was informed that no further licence would be issued to him. On August 24, 1964, the appellant filed the petition above-mentioned in the High Court. No explanation has been given in the petition for the delay in filing the petition and it has not been explained what the appellant was doing between March 5, 1962, when the supplementary licence was issued, and April 6, 1964.

Reasoning: 3. It is well settled that the relief under Article 226 is discretionary, and one ground for refusing relief under Article 226 is that the petitioner has filed the petition after delay for which there is no satisfactory explanation6. The appellant in this case had claimed a mandamus or a direction to the respondents to issue to the appellant import licence for art silk yarn of the value of Rs. 8,03,530.45.It is well known that the exchange position of this country and the policy of the Government regarding International Trade varies from year to year and it would be rather odd for this Court to direct that an import licence be granted in the year 1968 in respect of alleged defaults committed by the Government in 1959 or 1962. In these matters it is essential that persons who are aggrieved by orders of the Government should approach the High Court after exhausting the remedies provided by law, rule or order with utmost expedition7. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that this matter involved fundamental rights and this Court at least should not refuse to give relief on the ground of delay.But we are exercising our jurisdiction not under Article 32 but under Article 226, and as observed by Gajendragadkar, C. J., in the passage extracted above, even in the case of alleged breach of fundamental rights the matter must be left to the discretion of the High Court.