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

2. The petitioners are a partnership firm. The petitioners are successors to J. Fernandes and Company of which Josinho Fernandes was the sole proprietor, hereinafter referred to as the original concern.3. In the month of October, 1961 the original concern booked orders for purchase of Surveying and Mathematical Instruments and Surgical and Scientific Instruments with a German firm. The orders were accepted by the German firm, as will appear from the letter dated 7 November. 1961.4. On 19/20 December, 1961 Goa was liberated. Prior to the liberation of Goa import licences were granted to the citizens of Goa by a Government Department known as "Junta do Comercio Externo" which means the Board of External Trade. The original concern is alleged to be an importer registered with the Junta prior to the month of December, 1961. After the liberation of Goa the representatives of Goa Chamber of Commerce and Industry saw the Administrator of Goa with regard to applications for import. On 18 January, 1962 the original concern applied to the Administrator of Goa for issuing an import licence for ? 32,652. 10 for Surveying and Mathematical Instruments and Surgical and Laboratory Equipments, along with necessary papers of firm commitments.5. The original concern obtained a licence on 12 February, 1962. The licence was No. 47. The original concern was allowed to import instruments, microscopes, laboratory apparatus and utensils all worth _ 32,652-10-0. The original concern opened a letter of credit on 21 February, 1962 for 50 per cent of the licence.6. The Central Government on 21 February, 1962 informed the Administrator, Goa, that the Central Government withheld action on all pending cases where import had been authorized. The Central Government gave two reasons. First, the Government were of the view that any relaxation of import would result in serious drain on foreign exchange, and second, that it was difficult for any authority to be satisfied about the firm commitments and some abuse was possible. Pursuant thereto the Administrator, Goa issued directions to suspend issue of letter of credit and all cases relating to firm commitments entered into before 18 December, 1961 which were till then not disposed of should be frozen.7. On 2 April, 1962 the Administrator of Goa issued a Press Note that imports into Goa, Daman and Diu would be governed by three principles. First, import would be allowed in cases (a) where letters of credits had been opened with the Banco National Ultra Marines on or before 18 December, 1961; (b) where goods were shipped on or before 20 December, 1961. Second, imports of certain specified items were banned. Third, imports would be allowed of certain goods to the extent of 50 percent of imports actually made in the quarter of September, October and November, 1961.8. The petitioners licence No. 47 was revalidated on 28 May. 1962 for _ 16,000 for which the petitioner had not till then opened letter of credit. 27 February, 1962 is the date when the Administrator of Goa had suspended to issue fresh letter of credit. In the month of July, 1962 the petitioner effected imports of goods for the full value.9. The Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 was applied to Goa. Daman and Diu from 1 October, 1963.10. In October, 1964 the original concern was taken over by the petitioner.11. In 1967 the Hand Book for the year 1967 declared the period 1 April, 1961 to 31 March, 1966 as the basic period and any one year during the period could be selected as the basic import by the concerned party who would become the established importers.12. On 15 May, 1967 the petitioner applied to the licensing authorities for recognising the change in the constitution of the firm and fixation of quota for which they could import the goods. The licensing authorities recognised the change in the constitution but refused to fix the quota on the ground that the original licence No. 47 granted to the original concern on 12 February, 1962 was not issued in accordance with the procedure followed for the issue of licence at that time. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order, The appeal was rejected. The petitioner filed a review application which was rejected.

Court's reasoning:
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.