Import licence policy was held non-statutory, with no vested right absent discrimination or mala fides.

A firm whose partners are Indian citizens can maintain a writ petition under Article 32, because the firm is treated as representing those citizens collectively. The import-control policy discussed was an administrative statement, not a statutory instrument, so it did not create an absolute or vested right to an import licence. An applicant had no enforceable right to insist on consideration under the policy in force when the application was made. In the absence of hostile discrimination, jurisdictional error, mala fides, or breach of natural justice, refusal of the licences was not held to infringe Articles 14 or 19(1)(g), and no mandamus or certiorari was warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution could be maintained by the firm. (ii) Whether refusal of the import licences, based on the existing import-control instructions and policy, violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution or gave rise to an enforceable right to the licences.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution could be maintained by the firm.

Analysis: A firm represents its partners collectively, and where the partners are citizens of India, the petition is to be treated as one filed by citizens. The objection that Article 19(1)(g) could not be invoked by the firm was therefore untenable.

Conclusion: The petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether refusal of the import licences, based on the existing import-control instructions and policy, violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution or gave rise to an enforceable right to the licences.

Analysis: The jurisdiction under Article 32 is confined to enforcement of fundamental rights. The import policy relied upon was only an administrative policy statement and not a statutory instrument conferring an absolute right to a licence. Such a policy could be altered by executive instructions, and an applicant had no vested right to have the application considered under the policy in force when it was made. The restrictions were treated as imposed in the interests of the general public and the national economy. No material was placed to support hostile discrimination under Article 14, and the delay or refusal was not shown to be without jurisdiction, mala fide, or contrary to natural justice.

Conclusion: The refusal of the licences did not infringe Articles 14 or 19(1)(g), and no writ of mandamus or certiorari was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The petitions failed on the merits because the import policy did not create an enforceable right to the licences and the impugned refusal was not shown to be unconstitutional or otherwise illegal.

Ratio Decidendi: An import-control policy statement, being administrative and non-statutory, does not confer a vested or enforceable right to an import licence, and refusal under a valid control regime does not violate fundamental rights absent jurisdictional defect, mala fides, or proven hostile discrimination.

---