VISHWAKARMA INDUSTRIES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE circumstances in which these two connected cases (Letters Patent appeal 350 of 1972 and Civil Writ Petition 242 of 1972) have been filed may first be surveyed. The Annual Import Trade Control Policy is announced by the ministry of Foreign Trade and Supply in the Government of India for each year for the period April to March. Public notice of the annual policy statement is given by publication in the Gazette of India. Public notice is also issued of any changes made in the policy in any regard from time to time. The period to which the Letters Patent Appeal relates is April, 1966 to March, 1967, On august 4, 1966, the Government of India issued public notice relating to 'liberalisation of policy for import of Iron and Steel and Ferro-alloys, by sc-tual users in the small-scale sector for the period April 1966 to March 1967' (Annexure 'a' to the writ petition ). Actual users in the small-scale sector to whom import licences for Iron and Steel and Ferro-alloys had been issued or might be issued for April to September, 1964, October 1964 to March, 1965, or for April 1965 to March 1966, were made eligible for the grant of liberal licence under the said public notice. The basis of licensing and the procedure for submission of import applications under the said policy of liberalisation was contained in para. 2 of the said public notice in the following words:-

(2.) THE appellant is a partnership concern which manufactures medical and surgical equipments and appliances from imported stainless steel sheets at hiranagar in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The above-mentioned industry carried on by the appellant is and was at all relevant times a 'priority industry' within the meaning of that expression used in the public notice dated August 4, 1986. The appellant is registered in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as an 'actual User Importer' under the small-scale industries registration scheme of the Government of India. The basic year on which the import entitlement of the appellant was to depend for purposes of the public notice being 1964-65, it may be mentioned at this stage that for the first half year of 1964-65, it had been granted import licences of the total value of Rs. 22,000/-, and for the second half of that year it had been issued imported raw material worth Rs. 53,500/by the Jammu and Kashmir Raw Material Depot instead of being given a direct import licence. On that basis the appellant made an application on September 7, 1966, for an import licence for 1966-67 of the value of Rs, 2,26,500/-, i. e. three times of Rs. 75,500/- which represented the total value of the import licence and of the raw material for Rs. 22,000/- and Rupees 53,500/respectively issued to the appellant during the basic year. It claimed three times the value of the import licence (including allotments from the R. M. D. Jammu) for the basic period as it, was admittedly included in the priority industry listed in the appendix to the public notice. Some dispute having arisen relating to the entitlement of the appellant and other such importers being worked out on the basis of the allotment of material by the Jammu and Kashmir state Government Raw Material Depot as it was different from the M. M. T. C. and had not been specifically named in the public notice, a representation was made by the Jammu and Kashmir Stainless Steel Manufacturers' Association which was considered by a Special Committee set up by the Government of India. Decision on that representation recorded by the Special Committee in its meeting held on August 17, 1967, was as follows:-" the Jammu and Kashmir Stainless Steel Manufacturers' Association, jammu, have represented on behalf of their members namely (i) Ess tee Industry, (ii) Raj Industries, (iii) Modern Metal Mills against the discrimination against them in the grant of licence for import of stainless steel. Their request was examined in detail and it was decided that in terms of the Import Policy followed by this office for import of raw materials and components, the allotments made through State Government Raw Material Depots during 1964-65 should have been taken into account for determining the firm's entitlement for import of raw materials and components for 1966-67 period. The Committee decided that these cases may also be considered on the same basis and release orders may be issued for 1971-72 period for the value that may become admissible to them and subject to other requirements such as machinery in terms of the current import policy. It was also decided that no additional value should be allowed for back periods. "

(3.) THE special licence that. was issued to the appellant on September 29. 1967, in pursuance of the public notice and in response to its application, dated september 8, 1966, was of the value of Rs. 66,000/-only being three times the value of the import licence that had been issued to it for the first half of 196465. No licence was issued to it at that stage on the basis of the value of the allotment of imported stainless steel by the Jammu and Kashmir Government raw Material Depot. On January 25, 1969, the Government of India communicated to the Iron and Steel Controller, Calcutta, the decision taken by it in the matter of issue of licences to small-scale industries manufacturing hospital appliances and surgical instruments in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh (Annexure R-2 ). In the note attached to the said communication it was noticed that whereas the public notice, dated August 4, 1966, had based the entitlement inter alia on the allotment of iron and steel imported through the M. M. T. C. , the said notice was silent regarding the allotment made by the Directors of Industries of the States out of the stocks lying with the autonomous bodies of the States. It was observed therein that if such allotments were to be taken as the basis then more than three times of the allotment given in 1and64-65 against regular applications could now be given against the period 1967-68, but "the entitlement determined on the above basis should be deemed against the period 1967-68, because as a policy we do not issue licences for more than one back period". The abovementioned note attached to Annexure R-2 further stated:-