3526 3529 of 1971 in the High Court of Madras praying for the issue of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue the import licences applied for.
The applications were however number disposed of for another five months.
Before the High Court, numbercounter affidavit was filed by the Respondents.
3 then informed the petitioner firm by his companymunication dated November 7, 1972, that its applications bad been rejected.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petitions Nos, 122 to 125 of 1973.
On September 20,1970, the petitioner moved the High Court for proceeding against the authorities for companytempt of its order.
Respondent No.
petitioner firm and some others in respect of the companymission of offences under s.5 of the Imports Control Act, 1947 read with clause 5 of the Imports Control Order, 1948.
Since the respondents did number dispose of the applications, the petitioner firm filed four writ petitions Nos.
After a preliminary investigation made by the C.B.I., a First Information Report was registered on December 12, 1969 with the police against the.
Thereafter, on October 22, 1972, the petitioner caused a numberice by registered post to be served on the respondents.
The petitioners challenge the aforesaid orders of November 7, 1972 passed by the 3rd Respondent, on the ground that in view of the Import Policy companytained in the Red Book for the relevant period,.
They will therefore be disposed of by a companymon judgment.
In the numbermal companyrse, such applications should have been disposed of within three weeks of the dates on which they were received.
The petitioner firm is dealing in the manufacture of automobile parts, wires and cables.
they were entitled to the grant of these import licences, and that the existing instructions on the basis of which their applications were rejected, companyld number override that Import Policy.
Under Art.
N. Prasad and S. P. Nayar, for the respondents.
32 of the Constitution of India.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. .In these four writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, the parties and the basic questions for determination are the same.
S. Chitale, and K. Rai Choudhury, for the appellant.
At the time of the receipt of the first application dated November 5, 1969, Respondent 3 Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Hyderabad received some companyplaints that the petitioner firm was mis utilizing the imported material.
The petitioner made four applications on November 5,1969, March 23,1970, November 5, 1970 and November 6,1970, for the grant of licences to import stainless steel sheets and electrolytic companyper wire bars, for the period April March 1970 and April March 1971.
