Court dismisses petition challenging import license debarment order due to expired time limit and lack of notice.

The court dismissed the petition challenging the order debarring the petitioner from obtaining import licenses, as the two-year period had expired. It held that non-service of notice did not invalidate the order, as the petitioner did not inform the respondents of his address change. The court found sufficient grounds for the Chief Controller to conclude that the petitioner could not utilize the imported goods. The petitioner's attempt to challenge the order based on non-service of notice was deemed insufficient. No costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order dated 27th/30th January, 1970 debarring the petitioner from obtaining import licenses.
2. Requirement of notice under Clause 10-C of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 before passing an order.
3. Petitioner's ability to utilize the imported goods in his factory.
4. Non-service of notice and its impact on the validity of the order.
5. Petitioner's change of identity and its implications.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Order Dated 27th/30th January, 1970:
The petitioner challenged the order debarring him from obtaining import licenses for two years and sought restoration of the imported goods or compensation. By the time the writ petition was heard, the two-year period had expired. The court focused on whether the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before the order under Clause 10-C was passed.

2. Requirement of Notice under Clause 10-C:
Clause 10-C of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 mandates that the Chief Controller of Imports & Exports must give a reasonable opportunity to the licensee to be heard before directing the sale of imported goods. The court confirmed that notice is necessary under Clause 10-C, and the Chief Controller must be satisfied that the goods cannot be utilized for their intended purpose after giving the licensee an opportunity to be heard.

3. Petitioner's Ability to Utilize the Imported Goods:
The court examined whether there was sufficient material to conclude that the petitioner could not utilize the goods in his factory. The goods had been imported in 1962 and remained unused for over five years. The petitioner had requested permission to process the goods outside his factory, indicating he was not in a position to use them in his factory. The court found that the Chief Controller had enough grounds to conclude that the petitioner could not utilize the goods.

4. Non-service of Notice and Its Impact:
The petitioner argued that he was not given notice under Clause 10-C. The respondents admitted that notice is mandatory but contended that reasonable steps were taken to serve it. The notice was returned unserved with the remark 'no such person in the beat.' The court found that the petitioner had not informed the respondents of any change in address, and thus, the non-service of notice did not vitiate the order. The court held that it was sufficient for the respondents to take reasonable steps to serve the notice.

5. Petitioner's Change of Identity:
The court addressed the confusion regarding the petitioner's identity. The petitioner admitted to changing his name from S.P. Verma to S.P. Dhir on the advice of a numerologist. The court found that the petitioner had been representing himself under both names, creating confusion. The notice and the order were addressed to S.P. Dhir, which the petitioner had used as early as 1969, contradicting his claim of changing his name in 1973. This inconsistency weakened the petitioner's argument regarding the non-service of notice.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, holding that the non-service of notice did not invalidate the order since the petitioner failed to notify the respondents of his address change. The court also found that there was sufficient material for the Chief Controller to conclude that the petitioner could not utilize the imported goods. The petitioner's attempt to leverage the non-service of notice was deemed insufficient to challenge the validity of the order. The court did not award any costs.

---