TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1975 (3) TMI 131
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of Goa import licences were, granted to the citizens of Goa by a Government Department known as "Junta do Comercio Externo" which means the Board of External Trade. The original concern is alleged to be an importer registered with the Junta prior to the month of December, 1961. After the liberation of Goa the representatives of Goa Chamber of Commerce and Industry saw the Administrator of Goa with regard to applications for import. On 18 January, 1962 the original concern applied to the Administrator of Goa for issuing an import licence for pound 32,652.10 for Surveying and Mathematical Instruments and Surgical and Laboratory Equipments, along with necessary papers for firm commitments. The original concern obtained a licence on 12 February, 1962. The licence was No. 47. The original concern was allowed to import instruments, microscopes, laboratory apparatus and utensils all worth pound 32,652-10-0. The original concern opened a letter of credit on 21 February, 1962 for 50 per cent of the licence. The Central Government on 21 February, 1962 informed the Administrator, Goa, that the Central Government withheld action on all pending cases where import had been authorised. The C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jected. The petitioner filed a review application which was rejected. The petitioner's grievances are these : First, licence No. 47 dated 12 February, 1962 was a licence issued in accordance with the procedure followed for the issue of licence at that time. The directions ,of the Central Government were illegal. The Central Government was not competent to issue directions to the Administrator of Goa except through the President in view of Articles 239 and 240 of the Constitution. Second, the provisions of the Goa, Daman, Diu Administration Ordinance No. 2 of 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance and Goa, Daman, Diu Administration Act 1 of 1962 hereinafter referred to as the Act cured all irregularities of the State, if any, for the grant of licence. Third, refusal to consider the application affects the fundamental right of the petitioner to carry on trade, and business. Fourth, the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 14 is violated because the respondents discriminated against the petitioner. The respondents granted licences to six parties. It is said that the conditions, namely, shipping before 20 December, 1961 and opening of letters of credit before 18 Decemb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t rejected it on the ground that licence No. 47 dated 12 February, 1962 was not issued in accordance with the procedure prescribed for issue of licences, at that time. The Government relied on paragraph 33 (n )of the Hand Book of Rules, 1968. In short, that paragraph is that licence would be given only for the basic period between 1 April, 1961 and 31 March, 1966 to established importers. The Government took the stand that the petitioner is not eligible because there was no valid licence. The petitioner does not challenge the validity of any provision of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, or any provision of any statutory orders issued thereunder. The, petitioner does not challenge the validity of paragraph 33(n) of the Hand Book of Rules of Procedure. There is no challenge to the authority of the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports to pass an order in the light of paragraph 33(n) of the Hand Book. Really, the petitioner's contention is that the licensing authorities misapplied or wrongly applied the Imports and Exports Control Act. A petition under Article 32 Will not be competent to challenge any erroneous decision of an authority. (See Gulabdas & Co. v. Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld continue to exercise their respective functions. Section 5 of the Act speaks of continuance of existing laws and their adaptation until amended or altered by the competent Legislature. Section 9 of the Act speaks of validation of certain action and indemnity of officers for certain acts similar to section 7 of the Ordinance. Sections 3 and 4 of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Ordinance No. 2 of 1961 and Sections 4 and 5 of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act No.1 of 1962 do not support the case of the petitioner. These provisions in the Ordinance and the Act came into force on 5 March, 1962. The import licence was issued on 12 February, 1962 which is prior to the coming into force of the provisions of the Ordinance and the Act. After the liberation of Goa the Portuguese laws were not in force and, therefore, the petitioner cannot take recourse to the Portuguese laws for the validity of the licence which was issued on 12 February, 1962. The Chief Civil Administrator was subordinate authority to the Government of India and was bound to obey the directions of the Central Government. The Chief Civil Administrator bad no authority to issue a licence in disregard of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut by the Chief Civil Administrator in his Press Note dated 2 April, 1962. It is not correct to say that the Chief Civil Administrator revalidated the licence dated 12 February, 1962 on 28- May, 1962. The Chief' Civil Administrator merely extended the validity of the licence for a further period of 90 days. It is not a case of revalidation of a defective licence but a case of extension of the duration of the licence. If the original licence was defective mere extension of the duration of the licence could not cure the defect. In any event, the protection, if any, of the validating section in the Ordinance would not extend beyond 4 March, 1962 because the acts validated under section 7 of the Ordinance must have been done between 20 December, 1961 and 4 March, 1962. The directions issued by the Central Government are impeached by the petitioner to be in violation of Articles 239 and 240 of the Constitution. Under Article 1(3)(c) of the Constitution, Goa, Daman and Diu became part of the territory of India by acquisition. Goa, Daman and Diu became a Union Territory on and from the data of their acquisition by the Government of lndia. Under Article239(1) a Union Territory shall be ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontended that the original concern was an importer registered with the Junta prior to December, 1961. The respondents denied that allegation. The petitioner in the rejoinder alleged that it is to be presumed that the original importer must have been registered with the Junta, prior to the liberation. No materials were shown to establish that the original concern was a regular registered importer. The contention on behalf of the respondents that the licence was issued without following the regular procedure and by inadvertence or mistake is borne by the facts and circumstances of the case particularly because the Chief Civil Administrator had no authority to issue any import licences in contravention of the directions of the Central Government issued on 3 January, 1962. The petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in M/s. Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports and others(A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1539.) in support of the proposition appearing at page 1542 of the Report. The proposition stated there in that one of the instances in relation to laws regulating the citizen's right to carry on trade or business guaranteed by Article 19(1) (g) may be catalogued as where th....