JAYADEVA PRINTING PRESS Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is engaged in printing works. It is a partnership concern. It has been in the field of printing for over 3 decades. With a view to import a printing machine known as 'Heidelberg GTO 12 5/8 x 18" (32x46 cm), single colour offset press of 1975, the petitioner sent an application dated 14-2-83 to the 2nd respondent for grant of import licence to import the aforesaid machine. Pursuant to the application, the petitioner was asked by the 2nd respondent to fill up the form and also to comply with certain other requirements. Accordingly, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has complied with all the requirements and the application is in proper order. But the 2nd respondent has rejected the application on 19-7-1983 (Annexure F) on the ground that the machine sought for import is too old to be allowed and it will be difficult to produce/procure spare parts of the machinery if it goes out of order. It is the validity of this order which is challenged in this petition.

(2.) Sri Shivanna, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that as per the import policy of the first respondent, the application could not have been rejected, that as per the certificate (Annexure G) issued by the Chartered Engineer for Graphic Machinery, the machine which the petitioner intends to import is of the year 1975 and its residuary life is more than 10 to 12 years and that its condition is quite satisfactory and they have also tested the machine and have further certified that their test run has shown that the machine is capable of giving satisfactory service having been reconditioned and brought up to Manufacturer's original specification. They have further certified that the spare parts are available. It is further submitted that having regard to the aforesaid certificate, the correctness of it is not challenged by the respondents, the machine which the petitioner intends to import, satisfies all the requirements of the import policy. Therefore it is submitted that the import licence is arbitrarily refused and as such the impugned order be quashed and the 2nd respondent be directed to issue the licence for importing the machine in question.

(3.) The import policy relating to printing machines as stated by the respondents in their statement of objections, is as follows :