Court upholds validity of Notifications under Export Act & Article 14, emphasizing limited judicial review

Dr. VENKATESH KABDE Versus UNION OF INDIA

Dr. VENKATESH KABDE Versus UNION OF INDIA - 1991 (56) E.L.T. 307 (Bom.) Issues:
Challenge to Notifications dated October 6, 1990 and October 19, 1990 under Section 16A of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to Notifications
The petitions sought a declaration that the Notifications dated October 6, 1990, and October 19, 1990, were ultra vires the provisions of Section 16A of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. These notifications exempted certain entities from the requirement of pre-shipment inspection for the export of engineering products and footwear. The main contention was that the Central Government did not have sufficient grounds to suspend the provisions of the Act under Section 16A(1).

Analysis: The Court noted that the power under Section 16A(1) can be exercised when circumstances exist that render it necessary or expedient in the public interest to suspend or relax the provisions of the Act. The Court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in such matters and highlighted the statutory requirement for parliamentary approval of notifications issued under Section 16A. The Court found that the Government had valid reasons for exempting certain entities based on their export performance and past track record, as evidenced by data provided in the return filed by the respondents. Therefore, the Court rejected the argument that there were no grounds for the Government to issue the notifications.

Issue 2: Consultation with Export Inspection Council
The petitioners contended that the notifications were issued without consulting the Export Inspection Council, as required under Section 6 of the Act for both inclusion and exclusion of commodities subject to quality control or inspection.

Analysis: The Court disagreed with this argument, noting that the notifications were issued after consulting the Council, as indicated in the return filed by the respondents. The Court also highlighted that Section 16A does not mandate consultation with the Council for exercising powers under that section. Therefore, the Court found no merit in the contention that exclusion of commodities required consultation with the Council and held that the challenge to the notifications lacked substance.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed both petitions, ruling that the notifications were valid and within the powers conferred by the Act. The Court discharged the rule in each petition and ordered costs to be paid.