FEDCO PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. S N BILGRAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For himself, Sinha, C. J., and Gajendragadkar and J. C. Shah, JJ.):The first petitioner is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office in Bombay and is engaged in the business of dyes, chemicals, plastics, and various other goods, the second petitioner is the Chairman and a Director of the first petitioner Company. In this petition for enforcement of fundamental rights under the Constitution they pray for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing an order made by the first respondent, the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Government of India, New Delhi, by which he cancelled five import licences which had been granted to the first petitioner by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay. There is also a prayer for an order on the second respondent, the Collector of Customs, Bombay directing him to assess the goods of the petitioner Company which have been landed in Bombay having been imported on the strength of these licences and allow the petitioner company to clear them. Of these five licences, two were dated 24-7-1958, two dated 16-8-1958, and the fifth dated 4-9-1958. The total value of the imports authorised by these five licences was Rs. 25,75,000. The petitioners contend that these five licences were granted to the petitioner Company on five applications sent by them by registered post to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Government of India, New Delhi- three sent on 17-6-1958, one on 26-6-1958, and the last on 22-7-1958. It is further stated that in respect of each of these applications a letter was received by the Company from the office of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Government of India, New Delhi, intimating that their application had been forwarded to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay with the necessary comments and asking the Company to contact this officer, the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay direct in the matter. The petitioner Company wrote in each case to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi, acknowledging receipt of these letters and at the same time to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay, requesting that the licences should be issued to them at an early date. After the licences were received by the Company the office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay, the Company placed orders for the goods covered by these licences and some of the goods actually arrived at Bombay. Before however any of these goods could be cleared the Company received a notice dated 24-9-1958, stating that whereas there was reason to believe that these five licences had been obtained fraudulently, the Government in the exercise of the powers specified in para. 9 of the Imports Control Order, 1955, proposed to cancel the said licences unless sufficient cause against that was furnished to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi, within 10 days of the date of the issue of the said notice. On September 26, the petitioner Company's solicitors sent a telegram to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi, requesting him to give particulars of the alleged fraud and to give them an appointment for inspection of papers and documents relied upon by him. On September 27, the Company wrote a letter to the same officer in which they gave a written explanation pointing out various facts and stating that they were victims of foul play by some person interested in causing damage to them and involving their reputation and in order to bring them in bad books with the authorities. In the concluding portion of this letter the Company stated:"We also reserve our right to add to, amend or alter the explanations contained in this letter hereafter and to submit such further explanations as may become necessary after taking inspection of all the papers and after getting the particulars of the alleged fraud. We shall thank you to give us also an opportunity of a personal hearing in the matter. This written explanation was handed over to the first respondent by the Company's representatives at an interview with him on September 30. At that interview also, it is said, the representatives of the Company pointed out to Mr. Bilgrami that in the absence of any particulars of the alleged fraud and without inspection of the papers relied upon by him it was not possible for the petitioners to give a complete explanation and that they reserved their right to give further explanation on getting the said particulars and inspection of the said papers. The Company's representatives had another interview with Mr. Sundaram, Director (Administration) in the Chief Controller's Office on 14-10-1958. At this interview the petitioners again requested Mr. Sundaram to give them particulars and that they might be permitted to inspect the papers. No particulars were however furnished and no inspection was allowed; but on that very date when they had this interview with Mr. Sundaram the first respondent made the order of cancellation.

(2.) The ten grounds set out in Cls. A to L of para. 15 of the petition as the basis for the relief resolve on analysis into four only. These are:

(3.) Of these four grounds, the third ground, viz., that Mr. Bilgrami had no authority in law to make an order under Cl. 9 of the Imports Control Order was made in apparent ignorance of the fact that the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, became competent to make an order thereunder in consequence of an amendment made in the Order, in 1958. As the clause originally stood the relevant words were:"The Central Government or any other Officer authorised in this behalf may cancel any licence granted under this order.....". By the amendment made on 27-2-1958, the words "or the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports" were inserted after the words "the Central Government" in this clause. The position on the relevant dates in September and October, 1958, therefore was that the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi had authority to cancel any licence granted under the Imports Control Order without being specially authorised in that behalf. It was apparently in view of this position which was pointed out by Mr. Bilgrami in his affidavit in opposition that the learned counsel for the petitioners did not press this ground at all. Nor did he press the fourth ground, viz., that the petitioners' right under Art. 14 of the Constitution has been infringed. It is obvious that if the order has been made without the petitioners having been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard that itself would entitle them to the relief prayed for. The question whether or not other persons were given a fair opportunity of being heard is entirely irrelevant.