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

1. This writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution is by a former Portuguese citizen, who became a citizen of India after the acquisition of the Portuguese territories in India by the Government of India on December 20, 1961. It may be mentioned that the Portuguese territories were acquired by India after military action. The petitioner was resident in Daman and had obtained 23 licences for import of various goods between October 9 and December 4, 1961The goods to be imported under these licences were to the value of over one million pounds. The licences were valid for a period of 180 days from the date of issue and could be renewed for a further period. The case for the petitioner is that he had placed firm orders in respect of the goods covered by the said licences with his foreign suppliers prior to December 20, 1961 for the full value of the licences and had made to the said foreign suppliers advance payments either in full or in part of the price of the goods. The total amount said to have been paid by the petitioner was over ?3,88,000 and he had to pay a further sum of over ?7,62,000 as the balance. The goods covered by these licences had to be shipped in the first quarter of 1962. The petitioners case further is that as the goods did not arrive within the period of 180 days he had applied on various dates for extension of the licences; but the same was refused. The petitioner then tried to persuade the foreign suppliers to cancel the orders and remit back the money paid to them, but they refused to do so. Consequently, he applied to the Government of India that he might be permitted to import the goods against the said licences, but this was also refused. He therefore filed the present petition in May 1963,

Court's reasoning:
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.