Source: http://www.rishabhdara.com/sc/view.php?case=5989
Timestamp: 2020-04-06 06:04:54
Document Index: 627462390

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 32', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 32', 'Art. 246', 'Art. 73', 'Art. 240', 'Art. 73']

J. FERNANDES & CO. versus THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS & EXPORTS & ORS
1975 AIR 1208	1975 SCR (3) 863 1975 SCC (1) 716
J. FERNANDES & CO. V. THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS & EXPORTS & ORS [1975] RD-SC 65 (7 March 1975)
CITATION: 1975 AIR 1208	1975 SCR (3) 863 1975 SCC (1) 716
D	1981 SC1946	(32)
Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 73(1)(a), 239(1),	240 and 264(4)--depending on whether licence was granted before or after liberation of Goa--Classification, if valid.
Constitution of India, 1950,	Art. 32--Grant of import licence--Petitioner not challenging the validity of	the Statute or statutory orders--Wrong application of law, if a violation of fundamental right.
Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 73(1)(a), 239(1),	240 and 246(4)--Union Territory,	administration of--Union Government, if can	issue	executive directions	to Administrator.
Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Ordinance No. 2 of 1962, Ss. 3, 4 and 7 and Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration)	Act No. 1 of 1962, Ss. 4, 5 and 9--Validation of all actions taken in good faith and for peace and good Government of Goa, Daman and Diu--Licence granted contrary to Procedure or by mistake or inadvertence. if could be validated.
Constitution of India, 1950, Article 19(1)(f)--Rejection of application for grant of import licence--Petitioner, if	can claim fundamental right to the grant of licence on the basis of a policy statement.
International Law--Acquisition of new Territory by Union of India--Rights,	if could be	founded	on pre-liberation law--Central Government (new Sovereign), if can alter	pre- existing procedure for issuing import licence.
The petitioners are a partnership firm.	They are successors to J.	Fernandes & Company (Original	concern) of which Joshino Fernandes was the sole proprietor. In the month of October, 1961	the original concern	booked	orders	for purchase of Surveying & Mathematical Instruments	and Surgical & Scientific Instruments with a German firm.	The orders	were accepted by the German firm on 7th November, 1961.	On 19/20 December, 1961 Goa was liberated. On 18 January, 1962	the original	concern applied to	the Administrator of Goa for issuing an import licence for pound 32,652.10 for	Surveying and Mathematical Instruments	and Surgical and Laboratory Equipments, along with necessary papers of firm commitments. The original concern obtained a licence on 12 February, 1962.	The licence was No. 47.	It opened	a letter of credit on 21 February, 1962 for 50	per cent of the licence. 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 authorised. 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. On April 2, 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 pertain specified items were banned. Third, imports would be	allowed of certain	goods	to the extent of 50 per cent	of imports actually made	in the quarter of September,	October	and November, 1961.
The petitioner's licence No. 47 was revalidated on 28	May, 1962 for pound 16,000 for which the petitioner bad not	till then opened letter of credit.
868 27 February, 1962 is the date when the Administrator of	Goa suspended issue of fresh letter of credit. In the month of July, 1962 the petitioner effected imports of goods for the full	value.
The Imports and	Exports Control Act, 1947 was applied to Goa, Daman & Diu from 1 October, 1963.
In October, 1964 the original concern was taken over by	the petitioner.
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.
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.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to cancel four orders mentioned in the petition and to	issue quota certificate to the petitioners.
It was contended for the petitioners : (i) The	petitioners' fundamental right under Art. 14 is violated	because	the respondents discriminated against the petitioners.	The respondents granted licences to six parties. There is no distinction between the cases of the petitioners and	the case of the six traders. (ii) The licence No. 47 dated 12 February, 1962 was a licence issued in accordance with	the procedure followed for the issue of licence at	that time.
The directions of the Central Government were illegal.	The Central Government was not competent to issue directions to the Administrator of Goa except through the President in view of Arts. 239 and 240 of the Constitution. (iii)	The provisions of	the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Ordinance No.	2 of	1962, and Goa, Daman	and	Diu, Administration Act 1 of 1962 cured all irregularities of the State,	if any, for the grant of licence. And (iv),	the refusal to consider the application affects the fundamental right of the petitioner to carry on trade and business.
Rejecting the contentions and dismissing the writ petitions.
HELD : (i) 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 Art. 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 liberation of Goa. [872 G-H] (ii) The petitioner does not challenge the.	validity of paragraph 3 3 (n) of the Hand Book of Rules of Procedure.
There is no challenge to the authority of the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports to pass an order in	the light of paragraph 33(n) of the Hand Book. [873 C] Really,	the petitioner's contention is that the licensing authorities misapplied or wrongly applied the	Imports	and Exports	Control Act. A petition under Art. 32 will not be competent to	challenge any	erroneous decision of	an authority. [873 D] Gulabdas & Co. v. Assistant Collector of Customs, A.T.R.
1957 S.C. 733, State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Mir Gulam Rasul, [1961]	3 S.C.R. 969, Smt. Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P., [1963]	1 S.C.R. 778 and Bhatnagars & Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, [1957] S.C.R. 701 at 712, relied on.
869 Parliament has	power under Art. 246(4) to make laws	with respect to any Union Territory.	The executive power of	the Union under Art. 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. [875 G-H] Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., A.I.R. 1974	S.C.
2192, referred to.
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	preexisting procedure for issuing import licences, after liberation, in exercise of its executive powers under Art. 73(1) of	the Constitution. [876 D] (iii)	Section 3 and 4 of the Goa, Daman and	Diu (Administration) Ordinance No. 2 of 1961 and Section 4 and 5 of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act No. 1 of 1962 do not support the case of the petitioner. These provisions in the	Ordinance and the Act came into force on 5 March, 1962.	The import licence was issued on 12 February,	1962 which is prior to the coming into force of the provisions of the Ordinance and the Act. After the liberation of Goa	the Portuguese laws were	not in	force and, therefore. the petitioner cannot take recourse to the Portuguese laws	for the validity of the licence which was issued on 12 February, 1962. The Chief Civil Administrator was	subordinate authority to the Government of India and was bound to	obey the directions of the Central Government. The Chief Civil Administrator had no	authority to issue a	licence in disregard of the directions of the Central Government.	Such a licence would not confer any right on the petitioner. [874 C-E] State of Punjab v. Jagdip Singh, [1964] 4	S.C.R.	964, referred to.
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	directions 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 riot intended to protect breaches of directions issued by the new sovereign. [874 E-G] Pama Chibar v. Union of India, [1966] 1 S.C.R. 357, referred to.
Third,	in the year 1967 the Government of India laid	down the conditions	that imports made under licences issued through	inadvertence or mistake in the past would not be considered for issuing the import quota certificate.	This is a matter of policy. The policy decision is also	not challenged by the petitioner. If the policy is followed and in a given case a licence was issued contrary to	the procedure or by mistake or inadvertence the decision in	the year 1968 in the light of the policy	enunciated in	1967 cannot	be regarded erroneous simply on the ground that	the original licence erroneously	issued	in 1962 might	be validated under s. 7 of the Ordinance. [874 H-875 B] Revalidation was in violation of the terms and conditions set out by the Chief Civil Administrator in his Press	Note dated 2 April, 1962.	It is not correct to say that	the Chief Civil Administrator revalidated the licence dated 12 February 1962	on 28 May,	1962.	The Chief Civil Administrator merely extended the validity of	the licence for a	further	period of 90 days. It is not	a case of revalidation of a defective licence but a case of extension of the duration of the licence. [875 C-D] 870 (iv) No materials were shown to establish that the original concern	was a regular registered importer. That apart, no person can on the basis of a Policy statement claim a right to the grant of an import licence. This Court has held that there is no absolute right much less a fundamental right, to tile grant of an import licence. In the present case, there is no misconstruction of any statutory provision. It cannot be said that	there is no authority of law to reject an application for import licence. [876 E-E; 877 C-E] Smt. Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P., [1963] 1 SCR 778,	M/s.
Andhra	Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports	and Others,	AIR 1974, SC 1539, and Deputy Assistant Iron	and Steel Controller v. L. Manickchand, Proprietor, Katrella Metal Corporation, Madras, [1972] 3 SCR 1, relied on.
Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. S. R. Sarkar, [1961] 1	SCR 379, K. T. Moopil Nair v. The State of Kerala, [1961] 3	SCR 77, Shri Madanlal Arora v. The Excise and Taxation, Officer, [1962] SCR 823, referred to.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 615 of 1970.
Y. S.	Chitale, H. N. Ramachandra and B. R. Agarwala,	for the petitioners.
P. P. Rao and S. P. Nayar, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY., C. J.-This writ petition is for a mandamus directing the respondents to cancel for orders mentioned in	the petition and to issue quota certificate to the	petitioners in respect of their past imports.
The petitioners are a partnership firm.	The petitioners are successors to	J. Fernandes &	Company of which Joshino Fernandes was the sole proprietor, hereinafter referred to as the original concern.
In the month of October, 1961 the original concern booked orders for purchase of Surveying & Mathematical	Instruments and Surgical & Scientific Instruments with a German firm.
The orders were accepted by the German firm, as will appear from the letter dated 7 November, 1961.
On 19/20 December, 1961 Goa was liberated. Prior Lo	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 pound 32,652.10 for	Surveying and Mathematical Instruments	and Surgical and Laboratory Equipments, along with necessary papers for firm commitments.
The original concern obtained a licence on 12 February, 1962.	The licence was No. 47. The original	concern	was allowed to import 871 instruments, microscopes, laboratory apparatus and utensils all worth pound 32,652-10-0. The original concern opened a letter of credit on 21 February, 1962 for 50 per cent of the licence.
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 authorised. 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.
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	per cent of imports actually made in	the quarter of September, October and November, 1961.
The petitioner's licence No. 47 was revalidated on 28	May, 1962 for pound 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.
The Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947 was	applied to Goa, Daman & Diu from 1 October, 1963.
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.
872 The petitioner's grievances are these : First, licence	No.
47 dated 12 February, 1962	was a	licence	issued	in accordance with the procedure followed for the issue of licence	at that time. The directions ,of	the Central Government were illegal. The Central Government was	not competent to issue directions to the Administrator of	Goa except through the President in view of Articles 239 and 240 of the	Constitution.	Second, the provisions of the	Goa, Daman,	Diu Administration Ordinance	No. 2	of 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance and Goa, Daman, Diu Administration Act 1 of 1962 hereinafter referred to as	the Act cured all irregularities of the State, if any, for	the grant of licence. Third, refusal to consider the applica- tion affects the fundamental right of	the petitioner to carry on trade, and business.	Fourth, the	petitioner's fundamental right under Article 14 is violated because	the respondents discriminated against the petitioner.	The respondents granted licences to six parties.	It is	said that the conditions, namely, shipping before 20 December, 1961 and opening of letters of credit before 18 December, 1961 could only operate in respect of licences issued by the Portuguese Government.	When by reason of policy, these were the conditions applied, the same should have been applied even to those who were given licences under the old laws by the Portuguese Government or those who were given licences by the Administrator of Goa under the operation of the	old laws.	There is no, distinction between the cases of	the petitioner and the case of six traders mentioned in Annexure R-4 at page 169.
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 December, 1961.	On 20	December, 1961	Goa became	a Union Territory. The licence on which the peti- tioner	bases the claim was dated 12 February,	1962.	The petitioner was not admittedly 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.
873 The petitioner	challenges the orders dated 28 September, 1968 rejecting the petitioner's application for the issue of a quota certificate.	The Government rejected	it on	the ground	that licence No. 47 dated 12 February, 1962 was	not issued in accordance with the procedure prescribed for issue of licences, at that	time.	The Government relied on paragraph 33 (n )of the Hand Book of Rules, 1968. In short, that paragraph is that licence would be given only for	the basic period between 1 April, 1961 and 31 March, 1966 to established importers.	The Government took the stand	that the petitioner is not eligible because there was no valid licence. The petitioner does not challenge the validity of any provision	of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, or any	provision of any statutory orders issued thereunder. The, petitioner does not challenge the validity of paragraph 33(n) of the Hand Book of Rules of Procedure.
There is no challenge to the authority of the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports to pass an order in	the light of paragraph 33(n) of the Hand Book.
Really,	the petitioner's contention is that the licensing authorities misapplied or wrongly applied the	Imports	and Exports Control Act. A petition under Article 32 Will	not be competent to challenge any erroneous decision of an authority. (See Gulabdas & Co. v. Assistant Collector of Customs(1) and	State	of Jammu & Kashmir v. Mir Gulam Rasul).(2) A wrong application of law would not amount to a violation of fundamental right.	Das, C.J. said in the	case of Gulabdas & Co. (supra) that if the provisions of law	are good and the orders passed are within the jurisdiction of the authorities there is no infraction of fundamental right if the authorities are right or wrong on facts.	In the case of Gulabdas & Co. (supra) the petitioners challenged	the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs.	The Customs authorities assessed duty under Item 45(4) of	the Indian Customs Tariff. The petitioners in that case contended that the duty should have been assessed under Item 45(a).	This Court	held that there was	neither	any violation	of fundamental right under Article 19 or any unequal treatment and the petition was not maintainable. This Court in	the case of Smt. Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P.(3) as also in	the case of Bhatnagars & Co. Ltd. v. Union of India,(4) held the same view that any erroneous decision would not be a violation of fundamental rights.
The petitioner	relied or sections 3, 4 and 7 of the	Goa, Daman & Diu (Administration) Ordinance 1962. Section 3 of the Ordinance in short stated that authorities	who immediately before the commencement of this Ordinance	were exercising lawful functions in connection	with	the Administration	of Goa, Daman and Diu or any part thereof shall,	unless	otherwise directed continue to	exercise in connection with such	administration	their	respective functions. Section 4 of the Ordinance speaks of continuance of existing laws and their adaptation until	amended or repealed by a competent legislature. Section 7 says	that all things done and all actions taken on or after	the appointed day (1) A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 733.
(3) [1963] 1 S.C.R. 778.
(2) [1961] 3 S.C.R. 969.
(4) [1957] S.C.R. 701 at 712.
874 which was 20 December, 1961 and before the commencement of the Ordinance, viz., 5 March, 1962 by the Administrator or any other 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.
The petitioner	also relied on sections 4, 5 and 9 of	the Act.	Section	4 speaks of	officers who	before	the commencement of the Act were exercising lawful functions would continue	to exercise their respective functions.
Section 5 of the Act speaks of continuance of existing	laws and their adaptation	until amended	or altered by	the competent Legislature.	Section 9 of the Act speaks of validation of certain action and indemnity of officers	for certain acts similar to section 7 of the Ordinance.
Sections 3 and 4 of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Ordinance No.	2 of 1961 and Sections 4 and 5 of the	Goa, Daman and Diu	(Administration) Act No.1 of 1962 do	not support the case of the petitioner. These provisions in the Ordinance and the Act came into force on 5 March, 1962.	The import	licence	was issued on 12 February, 1962 which is prior to the coming into force of the	provisions of	the Ordinance and	the Act. After the liberation	of Goa	the Portuguese laws were	not in	force and, therefore,	the petitioner cannot take recourse to the Portuguese laws	for the validity of the licence which was issued on 12 February, 1962.	The Chief Civil Administrator was	subordinate authority to the Government of India and was bound to obey the directions of the Central Government. The Chief Civil Administrator bad no	authority to issue a	licence in disregard of the directions of the Central Government.	Such a licence would not confer any right on the petitioner	(See State of Punjab v. Jagdip Singh) 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	directions given by the Government of	India.	The licence	was not issued in good faith or in a	reason-able 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 new sovereign. (See Pama Chibar v. Union of India) (2).
If the	licence dated 12 February, 1962 was validated by section	7 of	the Ordinance that validation would be an answer to any move on the part of the respondents to cancel that particular licence. What was deemed to be valid by legal fiction	for a certain purpose,	notwithstanding	the infirmity in granting it, cannot confer any right on	the, petitioner to	claim in future as a matter of	right,	any import quota.
(1) [1964] 4 S.C.R.964.
(2) [1966] 1 S.C.R. 357.
875 The validation would be only in	respect of	past transactions.	Third,. in the year 1967 the Government of India laid down the conditions, that	imports	made under licences issued through inadvertence or mistake in the	past would not be	considered for	issuing the import quota certificate. This is a matter of policy. Norm-ally, courts do not go into such policy decision. The policy decision is also not challenged by the petitioner. If the policy is followed and in a given case a licence was issued contrary to the procedure or by mistake or inadvertence, the decision in the year 1968 in the light of the policy enunciated in 1967 cannot be- regarded erroneous simply on the ground that the original licence erroneously issued in 1962 might be validated under section 7 of the Ordinance.
Any revalidation of the licence on 28 May, 1962 by	the Administrator would not assist the petitioner in regard to obtaining quota rights.	On 12 April, 1962 the Administrator himself	issued	a Press Note	specifying the conditions subject to which imports would be allowed. Revalidation was in violation of the terms and conditions set	out by	the Chief Civil Administrator in his Press Note dated 2 April, 1962.	It is	not correct to say that the	Chief Civil Administrator revalidated the licence dated 12 February, 1962 on 28- May, 1962. The	Chief'	Civil Administrator merely	extended the validity of the licence for a further period	of 90 days. It is not a case of revalidation of a defective licence but a case of extension of the duration of the licence.	If the original licence was defective	mere extension of the duration of the licence could not cure	the defect. In any event, the protection, if any, of	the validating section in the Ordinance would not extend beyond 4 March, 1962 because the acts validated under section 7 of the Ordinance must have been done between 20 December,	1961 and 4 March, 1962.
The directions issued by the Central Government	are impeached by the petitioner to be in violation of Articles 239 and 240 of the Constitution. Under Article 1(3)(c) of the Constitution, Goa, Daman and Diu became part of	the territory of India by acquisition. Goa, Daman and	Diu became	a Union Territory on and from the data of their acquisition by the Government of lndia.	Under Article239(1) a Union Territory shall be administered by the President acting	through an Administrator. Article 240 empowers	the President to make 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.
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 direc- tion issued by the Central Government and a	Presidential Regulation made under Article 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 876 of Punjab & Anr.(1) 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 confers power on the Union executive to exercise powers in respect of matters with respect to which Parliament has competence to make laws.
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.
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	preexisting procedure for issuing import licences, after liberation, in exercise of its executive powers under Article 73(1) of	the Constitution.
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 case 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.
The petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in	M/s.
Andhra	Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports	and others(2) in support of the proposition appearing at	page 1542 of the Report. The proposition stated there in	that one of	the instances in relation to laws regulating	the citizen's 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 Ujjambai's case (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 (1) A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 2192.
(2) A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1539.
877 ground that it is based on a misconstruction of a provision of the	Act or of a notification issued thereunder.	In Ujjambai's 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(1), K. T. Moopil Nair v. The State of Kerala(2)	and Shri Madanlal Arora v. The Excise and Taxation Officer(3).
In the case of Andhra Industrial Works. (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 con	the 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.
This Court in Deputy Assistant Iron and Steel Controller v.
L, Manickchand, Proprietor, Katrella	Metal	Corporation, Madras(4) 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.
For these reasons, the petition fails	and is dismissed.
Petition dlsmissed.
(1) [1961] 1 S.C.R. 379.
(3) [19621 1 S.C.R. 823.
(4) [1972] 3 S.C.R. 1.