TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (5) TMI 388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Vessels) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the said Rules'). The applications for grant of permit in respect of separate vessels have been dealt with differently, but the Permit to Fish in the Exclusive Economic Zone of India was granted in the prescribed form. The said Permit bearing No. 21002-25/92 FPI(Fy), dated 2-9-1994 as contained in Annexure-P/4 to LPA No. 610 of 2001 initially pertaining to Deep Sea Fishing Vessel, namely, 'VILLA DE MOGOR' was substituted by respondents vide Permit bearing No. 21002-26/92-FY(IND), dated 21-8-1998 as contained in Annexure - P/5 to LPA No. 610 of 2001 in favour of the appellant's Deep Sea Fishing Vessel, namely 'TEUCRO' was valid for a period of five years expired on 1-9-1999. The said Permit authorised the appellant to obtain on lease and operate the above stated Foreign Deep Sea Fishing Vessel in terms of the said Act and the said Rules, but the said Permit has allegedly not been renewed. It was further alleged that the said Permit issued under the said Act was granted in accordance with the Government of India policy relating to fishing of Deep Sea Resources in Indian Exclusive Economic Zone by leased For....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contention of the petitioner is that the purported policy decision on the basis whereof the renewal permit had not been granted being contrary to the provisions of the said Act and the said Rules, the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petitions. 4. Before proceeding to deal with the matter, we may notice that there exists a controversy as regard genuineness or otherwise of the letter dated 12-10-1994, which is annexed as Annexure - P/8 to LPA No. 610 of 2001 and it is in the following terms :- "Dated : 12-10-94 To : M/s. A.K. International,E-26, Anand Niketan,New Delhi-110 021 Subject : Leasing of Three Stern Trawlers Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter dated 16-9-94 on the above subject and to say that the leasing permits issued under the Letter of Intent No. 21002-25/92 FPI(Fy) dated 6-9-93 are valid for a total period of fifteen years, as stated in the LOI, automatically extendable after end of every five years subject to payment of permit fees. Your's faithfully (S.K. DAS) Deputy Commissioner (FY)" However, as contended by Mr. Sanghi, we need not to go into the aforementioned question in these appeals. 5.&emsp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aximum of two years. The letter dated 31st August, 1982 under which permission was granted to the petitioner contains several conditions. Therefore, it cannot be said that renewal of permission was as a matter of right. Secondly, an important fact in this case is the change in Government policy. The facts noted hereinabove show that in larger public interest, the deep sea fishing policy had to be reframed. The Government had to appoint a Review Committee in this behalf and the recommendations of the Review Committee received in February, 1996 had been duly accepted by the Government. In view of the entire policy change being undertaken by the Government, the grant of permission for deep sea fishing to foreign trawlers/vessels was totally suspended. The petitioner who admittedly had arrangement with foreign vessels could not, therefore, get renewal of permit for deep sea fishing. The petitioner cannot seek permission as a matter of right. Moreover, where public interest is involved, individual interest has to give way " This Court noted that having regard to the policy decision adopted by the respondents in the year 1996 pursuant to the report of a Review Committee constituted un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es. Rule 2(f) of the said Rules defines 'permit' inter alia means a permit granted under Section 5 or under Section 8 of the said Act, as the case may be. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the said Rules authorizes the Central Government or an officer designated by it who may on receipt of an application and after making such enquiry as may be deemed fit grant a licence in Form B for the purposes specified therein. Rule 7 of the said Rules provides for validity of permit. Rule 7(1) of the said Rules reads thus :- "7. Validity of permit : (1) Every permit shall, (a) be issued in original/duplicates and authenticated copies are to be distributed to enforcement and other connected authorities. (b) be valid for a period as may be specified in the permit and in no case exceed more than five years." The said Rules were amended by a notification bearing No. S.O. 36(E), dated 22-1-1991 in the following terms :- "3. In rule 7 of the said Rules, in sub-rule (1) - (1) in clause (b), for the wor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Apex Court laid down the law in the following terms :- "23. Thus, decisions of this Court have made it clear that an exercise of the permit issuing power, under Section 47 of the Act, must rest on facts and circumstances relevant for decision on the question of public interest, which has to be always placed in the forefront in considering applications for grant of permits. Consideration of matters, which are not relevant to or are foreign to the scope of powers conferred by Section 47, will vitiate the grant of a permit under Section 47. A fact, which, in certain circumstances, is relevant for a decision on what the public interest demands may become irrelevant where it is not connected with such public interest. Indeed, every class of consideration specified in Section 47(1) of the Act seems correlated to the interests of the public generally. It appears that Section 47(1)(a) gives the dominant purpose and Section 47(1)(b) to (f) are only its sub-categories or illustrations. If any matter taken into consideration is not shown to be correlated to the dominant purpose or, the relationship or the effect of a particular fact, which has operated in favour of a grant is such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....may give way to public interest, but such public interest must exist. Although a public interest may prevail over the private interest, the same would require serious application of mind on the part of the appropriate authority wherefor it was obligatory on its part to give an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. Be it recorded that according to Mr. Sanghi even despite the said purported policy decision, similar licences had been renewed. If that be so, the appellants cannot be discriminated against. 17. The contention of the respondents to the effect that a bona fide mistake had been committed in filling up column No. 7 of prescribed form of Permit to Fish in the Exclusive Economic Zone of India cannot also be accepted. Even such a mistake could have been rectified, having regard to the civil consequences suffered by the appellants herein, only upon compliance of the principles of natural justice. In Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 2480, the law has been laid down in the following terms :- "2. ... The appellant who had joined the Railways as a Trains Clerk w.e.f. 18-12-1955 was promoted as Guard, Grade - C w.e.f. 18-12-1970 by an ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of such an amendment, a distinction has been made between a chartered vehicle and a leased vehicle. In relation to a chartered vehicle licence for a period of 5 years only can be granted whereas in respect of leased vehicle licence can be extended up to 15 years. Thus, the chartered vehicles and leased vehicles for the purpose of grant and/or renewal of licence stand absolutely on different footings. A purported decision adopted by the State must, therefore, be construed in the light of the statutory provisions and not de hors the same. As the attention of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Golden Ahar Ltd.'s case (supra) had not been drawn to the aforementioned amendment, the said decision cannot be said to be a binding precedent on the aforementioned question. In Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr. v. M/s. Jagdamba Oil Mills & Anr., JT 2002 (1) SC 482, it was held :- "19. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are not to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute. These observ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xxx    xxx    xxx    xxx "precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it." A decision, as is well known, an authority what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. It is also a trite law that a point not raised before a Court would not be an authority on the said question. Furthermore, refusal to grant and/or renew a permit on irrelevant consideration would be a jurisdictional fact amenable to the writ jurisdiction. 19. In State of UP & Anr. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. & Anr., (1991) 4 SCC 139, the law has been stated in the following terms :- "40. 'Incuria' literally means 'carelessness'. In practice per incuriam appears to mean per ignoratium. English courts have developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. The 'quotable in law' is avoided and ignored if it is rendered, 'in ignoratium of a statute or other binding autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Greene, M.R., said that he could not help thinking that the point now raised had been deliberately passed sub silentio by counsel in order that the point of substance might be decided. He went on to say that the point had to be decided by the earlier Court before it could make the order which it did; nevertheless, since it was decided "without argument, without reference to the crucial words of the rule, and without any citation of authority", it was not binding and would not be followed. Precedents sub silentio and without argument are of no moment. This rule has even since been followed." In State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., (1991) 4 SCC 139 reiterating the same view, this Court laid down that such a decision cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141 of the Constitution of India and observed thus :- "A decision which is not express and is not founded on reasons nor it proceeds on consideration of issue cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141." In the case of Arnit Das v. State of Bihar, 2000 (5) SCC 488 : (2000 AIR SCW 2037 : AIR 2000 SC 2264 : 20....