KARAM CHAND GANGA PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in these appeals, by certificate, moved the High Court of Delhi under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issuance of writs, directions or orders as the case may be requiring the Union of India to release and deliver to the appellants some consignments of maize transported from the State of Haryana to Howrah in West Bengal during the month of October, 1967. Their case is that the movements of maize had been controlled by the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Northern Inter-Zonal Maize (Movement Control) Order, 1967 promulgated by the State Government on May 3, 1967. But the restrictions on export imposed by that order were removed by the State of Haryana in October, 1967. That announcement was made by the Chief Minister of that State at Karnal on October 11,1967 and the same was announced through the radio and published through newspapers. Relying on those announcements several parties exported maize, which was surplus in Haryana State to Howarh in West Bengal. But at Howarh the railway authorities refused to deliver the same to the consignees on the ground that the export in question was illegal. It was disclosed at the hearing that the maize exported was seized by the Police and it was subsequently forfeited. Thereafter the persons responsible for the export were prosecuted and those prosecutions were pending.

(2.) The contention of the Union is that the State of Haryana had not lifted the ban on export and further it had no power to lift the ban. Hence the export was illegal and as such the railway authorities were competent to withhold the delivery of those goods.

(3.) The principal questions that arose for decision before the High Court were:Was the ban on export lifted by the State Government If it did lift the ban was it competent to do so If the ban is held to have been validly lifted it follows as a necessary corollary that the refusal on the part of the railways to deliver the maize exported is illegal and the authorities were not competent to seize or forfeit the maize exported. Further the prosecutions launched would become unsustainable.