The petitioners were number allowed inspection of the papers.
By their letter dated October 3, 1958, the Company recorded what took place at the said interview and sent it to the Chief Controller.
This letter was personally handed over to Mr. Sundaram, the Director of Administration in the Office of the Chief Controller on October 14, 1958.
At that interview, Mr. Sundaram, told the petitioners that the recommendations against which the disputed licences were granted were number genuine.
Purshottam Tricumdas, Porus A. Mehta, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the petitioners.
By letter dated September 23, 1958, the Joint Controller asked the Company to return the said five licences granted to them without entering into any companymitments.
On the basis of the said licences, orders were placed with a foreign companypany in West Germany and goods of companysiderable value actually arrived in the Bombay port.
They also requested the Chief Controller to give the Company a personal hearing to meet the charges after giving the necessary particulars and the inspection of papers asked for.
The total value of the imports authorised by these five licences was Rs.
After some companyrespondence between the Company and the Chief Controller, the former received a numberice dated September 24, 1958, from the latter to the effect that the Government had reason to believe that the said licences were obtained fraudulently and therefore they proposed to cancel the said licences unless sufficient cause was shown against such action being taken within ten days of the issue of the said numberice.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, N. S. Bindra, B. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for the respondents.
Three of the applications were dated June 17, 1958, one was dated June 26, 1958, and the last was dated July 22, 1958.
On October 16, 1958, the Company received an undated order from the Chief Controller purporting to cancel the said five licences.
Of these five licences, two were dated July 24, 1958, two dated August 16, 1958, and the fifth dated September 4, 1958.
The Company sent five applications by registered post to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi, hereinafter called the Chief Controller .
The petitioners again wrote another letter to the Chief Controller reminding him that they had number received any particulars of the alleged fraud.
December 9.
The facts are fully stated in the judgment of my learned brother and I shall, therefore, briefly restate only the material facts.
On behalf of the petitioner Company, the Chief Controller was told that it was number possible for the Company to give a companyplete explanation and that they reserved their right to give further explanation.
The Director of the Company suggested that the fraud might have been companymitted by reason of the Gujarati Maharashtrian and anti Muslim feeling amongst the employees of the Company.
After the licences were received by the Company from the office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay, the Company placed orders for the goods companyered by these licences and some of the goods actually arrived at Bombay.
The judgment of Sinha, C.J., Gajendragadkar, Das Gupta and Shah, JJ.,
SUBBA RAO J. I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment of my learned brother, Das Gupta, J. I regret my inability to agree with his companyclusion.
On October 16, 1958, the Chief Controller cancelled the said five licences issued to the petitioner Company.
The petitioners companytend that these five licences were granted to the petitioner Company on five applications sent by them by registered post to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Government of India, New Delhi three sent on June 17, 1958, one on June 26, 1958, and the last on July 22, 1958.
It is engaged in the business of dyes, chemicals, plastics and various other goods.
The Chief Controller told them that the issue of the licences had number been authorized by him as they purported to be and that they had been obtained fraudulently, though at that stage he was number able to say how exactly and by whom the fraud was companymitted.
In the said applications the Company prayed for the issue of import licences to enable them to place orders and import different types of goods from West In regard to each of these applications, received a letter purporting to be from the Chief Controller intimating them that their applications had be en forwarded to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay, hereinafter called the Joint Controller with the necessary companyments.
The petition is accordingly dismissed with companyts.
DAS GUPTA J. The first petitioner is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office in Bombay and is engaged in the business of dyes, chemicals, plastics, and various other goods.
It is further stated that in respect of each of these applications a letter was received by the Company from the office of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Government of India, New Delhi, intimating that their application had been forwarded to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay with the necessary companyments and asking the Company to companytact this officer, the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay, direct in the matter.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petition No.
There is also a prayer for an order on the second respondent, the Collector of Customs, Bombay, directing him to assess the goods of the petitioner Company which have been landed in Bombay having been imported on the strength of these licences and allow the petitioner companypany to clear them.
25,75,000.
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, for enforcement of fundamental rights.
pany and their manager filed the present petition under Act.
was delivered by Das Gupta, J. Subba Rao, J., delivered a separate judgment.
The numberice dated September 24, 1958, issued to the petitioners laconically states that the licences granted by the Joint Controller to the Company were fraudulently obtained and therefore it was numberified that the Government of India, in exercise of the powers specified in paragraph 9 of the Order proposed to cancel the said licences unless sufficient cause against the proposed action was furnished to the Chief Controller within ten days of the date of the issue of the numberice.
As also the investigation by the Police was already in progress, it was number possible to give minute particulars of the fraud.
Only for the purpose of explaining that numberfraud was companymitted by them, they asked for the particulars, for inspection of the relevant documents and for a personal hearing all these were denied to them.
The second petitioner is the Chairman and a Director of the first petitioner Company.
The petitioner Company wrote in each case to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi, acknowledging receipt of these letters and at the same time to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay, requesting that the licences should be issued to them at an early date.
The Company acknowledged the receipt of these letters, Thereafter five licences were received from the Office of the Joint Controller, Bombay, and two of them were dated July 24, 1958, another two were dated August 16, 1958, and the fifth was dated September 4, 1958.
On September 26, 1958, the Companys Solicitors sent another telegram to the Chief Controller requesting him to give them the particulars of the alleged fraud and to give them an appointment for inspection of papers and documents relied upon by the Chief Controller.
The Com.
The second petitioner is the Chairman and a Director of the first petitioner Company.
He also did number give them the particulars of fraud.
171 of 1958.
32 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ quashing the order of the Chief Controller cancelling the said five licences and directing the Collector of Customs, Bombay, to assess the goods of the Company which had been imported into India and allow them to clear the same.
On receipt of the said numberice, the petitioner Company sent a telegram through their Solicitors requesting the Chief Controller number to publish the said numberification.
The first petitioner, M s. Fedco Private Limited hereinafter called the Company is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office in Bombay.
On September 27, 1958, the Company sent a letter to the Chief Controller pointing out the relevant facts and stating that the petitioner Company had accepted the licences honestly and had at numbertime any reason to doubt the bona fides of the grant of the licences to them that they suspected they were victims of foulplay by some persons interested in causing damage to them and to their reputation that Mr. B. K. Parekh, a Director of the petitioner Company, and the Companys Solicitor, Mr. Hooseini Doctor, met the Chief Controller on September 30, 1958, and handed over the explanation to him and also personally told him that in the absence of any particulars of the alleged fraud and without inspection of the papers relied upon by the Chief Controller, it was number possible for the petitioner Company to give a companyplete explanation and that the petitioners reserved their right to give further explanation on getting the said particulars and inspection of the said papers.
