TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1974 (4) TMI 99
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ires and cables. The petitioner made four applications on November 5,1969, March 23,1970, November 5, 1970 and November 6,1970, for the grant of licences to import stainless steel sheets and electrolytic copper wire bars, for the period April-March 1970 and April- March 1971. At the time of the receipt of the first application dated November 5, 1969, Respondent 3 (Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Hyderabad) received some complaints that the petitioner-firm was mis-utilizing the imported material. After a preliminary investigation made by the C.B.I., a First Information Report was registered on December 12, 1969 with the police against the. petitioner-firm and some others in respect of the commission of offences under s.5 of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctrolytic copper wire bars for end use of 'automobile parts' is not permissible". The petitioners challenge the aforesaid orders 'of November 7, 1972 passed by the 3rd Respondent, on the ground that in view of the Import Policy contained in the Red Book for the relevant period,. they were entitled to the grant of these import licences, and that the "existing instructions" on the basis of which their applications were rejected, could not override that Import Policy. In any case, these instructions are unconstitutional; they do not amount to 'reasonable restrictions' within the contemplation of Article 19 of the Constitution on the petitioners' right to carry on their trade. The petitioners pray that the impugned orders, dated November 7, 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that the Respondents have not followed the mandatory procedure prescribed in the Import Trade Control Hand Book, contravention of which entitles the petitioners to the issue of a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate order or direction from this Court. This contravention, it is added, has, in effect, violated the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. We find no merit in the preliminary objection that the writ petition on behalf of the "firm" is not maintainable. Since "firm" stands for all the partners collectively, the petition is to be deemed to have been filed by all the partners who are citizens of India. We, therefore,. negative this objections We however, find force in the other ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contended that the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947 or any Order or rule made thereunder is ultra vires. Nor is the validity of the Import Control Policy Statement (for the period April-March 1969) known as Red Book impeached. Indeed, this Policy statement is the sheet-anchor of the petitioners' claim. Such a Policy Statement, as distinguished from an Import or Export Control order issued under s.3 of the said Act, is not a statutory document. No person can merely on the basis of such a Statement claim a right to the grant of an import licence, enforceable at law. Moreover, such a Policy can be changed, rescinded or altered by mere administrative Orders or executive instructions issued at any time. From the counter-affidavit filed o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., much less a fundamental right, to the grant of an import licence. The nature of such a claim came up for consideration before this Court in Deputy Assistant Iron and Steel Controller and anr. v. L. Maneckchand, Proprietor, Katrella Metal Corpn., Madras. ( [1972] 3 S.C.R. 1) That was an appeal by special leave against the judgment of tile High Court rendered in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Art. 226. The writ-petitioner asked for the issue of a Mandamus requiring the authorities to consider his application for licence to import stainless steel in terms of 1968-69 Policy and not in accordance with 1970-71 Policy when the application was made. This Court held that in view of s.3(1)(a) of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947 and cl....