TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (3) TMI 62
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n in the Calcutta High Court seeking various reliefs against the Union of India (through the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi), the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi, the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports,, Amritsar, the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, and the State Trading Corporation of India, New Delhi. The primary prayer in the writ petition is to prevent or to quash an apprehended or purported action under cl. 8B of the Import Control Order. All the other reliefs sought in the writ petition revolve round the principal relief regarding cl. 8B of the Import Control Order. The other prayers are either ancillary or incidental to the principal prayer or are of an interlocutory character. Having regard....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as apparently filed in professed or real ignorance of the order made under cl. 8B of the Import Control Order. On November 22, 1983, a learned single judge of the Calcutta High Court issued a rule nisi and granted an interim order in the following terms : " There will be an interim order of stay/injunction in terms of prayers (j), (k), (1) and (n) of the writ petition till the disposal of the rule. Liberty is given to the respondents to apply for vacation or variation." The rule was made returnable on January 31, 1984. Prayers (j), (k), (1) and (n) of the petition were for the grant of : " (j) Injunction restraining the respondents, their servants and/or agents from filing any criminal complaint against the petitioners or any of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... we do not wish to say that a drastic interim order may never be passed without hearing the opposite parties, even if the circumstances justify it, we are very firmly of the opinion that a statutory order such as the one made in the present case under cl. 8B of the Import (Control) Order ought not to have been stayed without at, least hearing those that made the order. Such a stay may lead to devastating consequences leaving no way of undoing the mischief. Where a plenitude of power is given under a statute, designed to meet a dire situation, it is no answer to say that the very nature of the power and the consequences which may ensure is itself a sufficient justification for the grant of a stay of that order, unless, of course, there are s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were made against various import-export houses and, others. Some of these orders have been questioned by the affected parties in different High Courts and, in some cases, interim orders have also been obtained. One such writ petition filed by Liberty Oil Mills Pvt. Limited has been transferred to this court from the Bombay High Court at the instance of the Union of India. The case is now pending in this court and has in fact been heard in part by this very Bench. Apparently, under the impression that the questions at issue will be finally determined by this court in the case of Liberty Oil Mills, the Union of India and the other authorities do not seem to have moved expeditiously to contest the writ petitions filed in the High Courts and to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as not right in granting interim relief in the terms in which it had done so. We, therefore, vacate the interim order dated November 22, 1983, made by the Calcutta High Court. It has been pointed out to us that the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports has himself issued a public notice dated September 1, 1983, permitting re-shipment/re-export of import consignments which could not be cleared consequent upon the Ministry of Commerce, Import Trade Control Order No. 27 of 1983 dated August 24, 1983. The public notice empowers the customs authority to allow re-shipment/re-export having regard to the extent to which foreign exchange spent on import will be earned back and subject to such other conditions relating thereto as the customs author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld be said to have committed any contempt of court, even prima facie, by their mere failure to take action in the matter of the disposal of the applications of the writ petitioners. In the circumstances, we perceive the application to commit the authorities for contempt of court to be a device to exact licences from them. We accordingly allow the appeal, vacate the interim order dated November 22, 1983, of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Rule No. 10933-W of 1983, and quash the rule for contempt of court issued on February 3, 1984, in Civil Rule No. 571-W of 1984. Before we part with the case, we may refer to a statement made by Shri J. P. Sharma, Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi, in the affidavit filed by him....