Canalisation of imports through selected agencies upheld as a reasonable public-interest restriction; discrimination claim also failed.

Canalisation of imports through selected agencies under the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, was upheld as a reasonable restriction in the public interest, and refusal of licences to others did not infringe Articles 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g) or 31 because no acquisition of property or trade rights was shown. The corresponding enabling provision in the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947, was therefore not invalid. Alleged discrimination under Article 14 also failed because the petitioners had not applied under the relevant Export Promotion Scheme, so no unequal treatment was established. The constitutional challenge to the import-control arrangement was rejected, and no relief under Article 32 was available.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the restriction enabling canalisation of imports through special or specialised agencies or channels under the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, and the enabling provision in the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947, were invalid as infringing Articles 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g) and 31 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the grant of import licences to the State Trading Corporation, in the circumstances of the case, amounted to discrimination in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the restriction enabling canalisation of imports through special or specialised agencies or channels under the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, and the enabling provision in the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947, were invalid as infringing Articles 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g) and 31 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: A licensing requirement in import control necessarily restricts trade, but canalisation of imports through selected agencies is treated as a matter of economic policy in the public interest. The Court held that, where the Government decides that a commodity should be imported only through selected channels, refusal of licences to others is ordinarily a reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public unless the contrary is clearly shown. The challenge to Article 31 also failed because refusal of a licence does not amount to acquisition of property or acquisition of a right to trade by the selected agency. The enabling statutory provision was therefore not invalid to the extent attacked.

Conclusion: The challenge to paragraph 6(h) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, and to the corresponding enabling part of Section 3 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947, failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the grant of import licences to the State Trading Corporation, in the circumstances of the case, amounted to discrimination in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The petitioners had not applied for licences under the Export Promotion Scheme, whereas the licences had been granted under that scheme. In the absence of any application by the petitioners under the relevant scheme, no basis existed for a claim of unequal treatment or preference in their favour being denied. The alleged discrimination was therefore not established.

Conclusion: No violation of Article 14 was made out.

Final Conclusion: The petitioners failed to establish any constitutional infirmity in the impugned import-control arrangement, and no relief was available under Article 32.

Ratio Decidendi: Canalisation of imports through selected agencies may constitute a reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public, and a claim of discrimination cannot succeed absent an application by the complainant under the relevant licensing scheme.

---