Import license refusal deemed discriminatory violating Indian Constitution; fundamental rights prevail. Quashed orders, directive for license issuance.

The court found that the refusal to grant an import license to the petitioner while granting licenses to similar firms for the same items constituted discrimination, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Despite a preliminary objection on exhausting departmental remedies, the court held that fundamental rights take precedence. The judgment emphasized the importance of non-discriminatory practices in import licensing, leading to the quashing of the impugned orders and a directive for the issuance of the import license to the petitioner within two months.

---

---

Issues:
Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in refusing import license for specific items, discrimination in granting import licenses to petitioner compared to other firms.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing electronic items, sought import licenses for sub-assemblies and loud-speakers. The Director of Industries recommended the grant of supplementary licenses for these items, but the petitioner's application was rejected based on an "indigenous angle" by the Supplementary Licensing Committee. The petitioner alleged a violation of Article 14, claiming discrimination as other firms were granted licenses for the same items. The court scrutinized the records of the Committee meetings and found that similar firms were granted licenses for the same items, highlighting discriminatory treatment towards the petitioner. The court emphasized that executive actions in granting import licenses must not discriminate among similarly situated firms. The judgment concluded that the non-grant of a license to the petitioner was discriminatory and ordered the impugned orders to be quashed.

The court addressed a preliminary objection raised regarding the petitioner not exhausting departmental appeal remedies before approaching the court. However, considering the alleged infringement of a fundamental right under Article 14, the court held that alternative remedies do not bar the court's jurisdiction in such cases. Citing precedents, the court clarified that the availability of an alternative remedy is a self-imposed restriction and not a bar when fundamental rights are at stake. The court proceeded to allow the writ petition, quashing the impugned orders and mandating respondents to issue the import license for the specified items within two months.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of non-discriminatory practices in granting import licenses and upholds the petitioner's right to fair treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court's decision to quash the impugned orders and direct the issuance of import licenses underscores the need for equitable treatment in administrative actions related to import licensing.

---