TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAM Vs. MADRAS PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is as follows :-

(2.) THE petitioner-Devasthanam obtained an import licence for the import of dried grapes (raisins) vide licence No. 0348730 dated 30-1-1989 for a value of Rs. 40 lakhs. THE raisins to be imported by the petitioner-Devasthanam is for preparing prasadams like laddus, etc. As per the licence, the import has to be routed through the State Trading Corporation, the second respondent herein, and as such, the petitioner-Devasthanam had to import the dried grapes through the second respondent herein. THE Executive Officer of the petitioner-Devasthanam sent a telex on 28-8-1990 to the second respondent requesting quotations from overseas supplier for the supply of two containers of 20 tonnes each of dried grapes. THE second respondent replied by telex dated 7-9-1990 stating that they have asked for fresh quotations for further import of raisins from overseas suppliers by inviting samples. This was followed by another telex by the second respondent dated 17-9-1990 stating that only two suppliers from Turkey who had earlier supplied raisins to the petitioner-Devasthanam have quoted prices and sent samples. It was also communicated in the said telex that fresh samples of certain type of raisins are being sent by air parcel for approval by the petitioner-Devasthanam. On 3-10-1990, the petitioner-Devasthanam wrote a letter to the second respondent that among the samples received it favoured Standard 9 Natural Sultana and as the price seemed to be high, it requested the rate to be negotiated with the supplier. Later on, on 11-10-1990, the petitioner-Devasthanam accepted the re-negotiated rate of US $ 1070 metric tonne for Standard 9 Sultana and placed orders for two containers of 20 tonnes each. THE second respondent informed the petitioner by telex dated 19-10-1990 that they have placed an order for 20 tonnes of raisins as required by the Devasthanam. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the sale of the consignment of dried grapes by the second respondent to the petitioner-Devasthanam was made on the high seas by endorsing the shipping documents, and that the second respondent informed the petitioner that the consignment has reached Madras Harbour on 24-12-1990. When the petitioner's clearing agent Shaw Wallace Company Limited took the original documents to process the clearance of the goods on behalf of the petitioner-Devasthanam, it was not cleared by the Port Health Authorities and on enquiry the petitioner was informed that the consignment of raisins did not conform to the standards laid down for raisins under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954

(3.) NOTICE of motion has been ordered by me on 1-8-1991.