A SUBBARAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the petitions and the respective affidavits filed in support thereof the order of the High Court dated 14-9-1973 and made in W.P. Nos. 5296 and 5297 of 1973 and the counter affidavit filed in W.P. Nos. 5296 and 5297/73 and the supplemental offer's filed in W.P. 5297/73 and the records relating to the export of the subject goods covered under the relevant shipping Bill Nos. 79 dated 1-9-1973 and 171 dated 3-9-1973 on the file of the respondent in all the petitions comprised in the return of the respondent in all the petitions to the writs made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of M/s. Habibullah Badsha and I. Subramaniam Advocates for the petitioner in each of the petitions and of Mr. K. Parasaran, Central Government standing counsel on behalf of the respondent in all the petitions the court made the following order :- The petitioner in W.P. Nos. 5297 and 5653 of 1973 is one

(2.) AND the same while the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 5296 AND 5654 of 1973 is one AND the same. The petitioner in the former two writ petitions is one Perumal Naidu, AND the petitioner in the other two petitions is one Subbaraj, who is the son-in-law of the said Perumal Naidu. On 29-3-1973 Perumal Naidu wrote to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports AND Exports, Madras requesting him to intimate the current policy regarding the export of Bone Meal, to overseas countries. By a letter dated 23-4-1973 the Joint Chief Controller of Imports AND Exports, Madras replied to him stating that under the current export policy there was no restriction whatsoever regarding the export of Bone Meal to overseas countries. Perumal Naidu happened to make this enquiry in view of the fact that he came to know that there were good prospects for the export of Bone Meal to Japan where it was used as raw material for the manufacture of glue AND that merchants in Bombay AND Calcutta were already effecting substantial export of this material to Japan AND other overseas countries. Thereafter, according to the petitioners, Perumal Naidu AND Subbaraj, they entered into correspondence with overseas buyers for the export of this material AND ultimately entered into a contract with Messrs. J. C. Gilbert Ltd., London, for the supply of Bone Meal, subject to the specifications laid down in the contract. Having entered into the contract, they subsequently exported the goods, AND the necessary documents were presented to the Customs authorities for clearance. On 8-9-1973 the Assistant Collector of Customs passed the "Let Export" order, meaning that he permitted the export of the goods in question. The goods were accordingly loaded into the steamer. But, when the loading was over AND before the steamer actually sailed, the Asstt. Collector of Customs changed his mind AND gave a direction to the shipping agents to unload the cargo on the ground that the goods in question were really fertilizers which could not be exported without a licence. At that stage the petitioners filed W.P. Nos. 5296 AND 5297 of 1973 for quashing the later order of the Asstt. Collector of Customs, AND also obtained interim orders of stay. By that time the goods had been unloaded AND the ships AND also sailed away. It was thereafter they filed W.P. Nos. 5653 AND 5654 of 1973 for the issue of a writ of mANDamus directing the respondent herein to permit the petitioners to export the consignment of goods covered by the relevant shipping bills. The sole question for consideration is whether the Asstt. Collector of Customs was competent to pass the subsequent order dated 13-9-1973 reviewing or revising his own earlier order dated 8-9-1973. I am clearly of the opinion that the Asstt. Collector has no such power. The original order passed by the Asstt. Collector of Customs, namely, "Let export" order dated 8-9-1973, clearly falls within the scope of section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962 which says: