1984 (7) TMI 356

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e to import the aforesaid machine. Pursuant to the application, the petitioner was asked by the 2nd respondent to fill up the form and also to comply with certain other requirements. Accordingly, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has complied with all the requirements and the application is in proper order. But the 2nd respondent has rejected the application on 19-7-1983 (Annexure F) on the ground that the machine sought for import is too old to be allowed and it will be difficult to produce/procure spare parts of the machinery if it goes out of order. It is the validity of this order which is challenged in this petition. 2. Sri Shivanna, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that as per the import policy of the first ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nditioned machinery having expected residual life of less than five years and also machinery of more than 10 years old, is not allowed under this provision." Item No. 12 of Appendix 2 relates to printing machinery. It is not the case of the respondents that the printing machinery which the petitioner proposes to import is one of the banned items. The certificate issued by the Chartered Engineer for Graphic Machinery, Annexure G, read with the aforesaid import policy of the first respondent makes it clear that the machine which the petitioner intends to import, satisfies all) the requirements of the import policy. However, Sri S. Shiva Shankar Bhat, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Government, contends that as per the guideline....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t policy. No doubt there is a discretion vested in the 2nd respondent in the matter of granting import licence. But this discretion is not absolute and unregulated. It is regulated by the norms laid down in the import policy announced by the Central Government. The 2nd respondent is required to exercise his power in conformity with the norms laid down in the import policy while considering the application for grant of licence to import. If the authority exercises the power otherwise than in accordance with the import policy, such exercise of power would be arbitrary and it amounts to abuse of power. Consequently, the order would be vitiated. It is this that has happened in the instant case. Having regard to the import policy referred to abo....