He obtained an interim order of stay but the said order was ultimately vacated.
15,000 and that he was in fact trafficking in these licences.
It appears that the petitioner obtained a licence for the import of soda ash only worth about Rs.
The petitioner then moved the Central Government against this, order but on September 22, 1955, the Central Government refused to interfere.
Petition No.
On receiving this report, investigation was made and subsequently the matter was left in charge of the Special Police Establishment.
The material facts which it is essential to mention are very few and they i.e within a very narrow companypass.
This petition had companye before this Court for hearing on March 24, 1955.
Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights Petitioner in person in Petitions Nos.
42, 46 and 423 of 1956.
571 of 1954, in respect of one of the three companysignments, in question.
When this order was passed, the petitioner filed one of the petitions before us.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J. This is a group of five petitions filed by the petitioners Messrs Bhatnagars Co. Private Ltd. In all these petitions, the petitioner Shri B. S. Bhatnagar, Managing Director of the above companypany, seeks to obtain appropriate writs from this Court mainly in respect of orders which have been passed by the Sea Customs Authorities against the petitioner.
377 of 1955 and 42, 46, 164 and 423 of 1956.
The petitioner seems to feel a grievance that, in the matter of licences which had been issued to him for importing soda ash, he has number received a fair treatment from the appropriate authorities and, since the impugned orders were passed, he has been moving the High Court of Punjab and this Court by several petitions under the Constitution.
In several places, the petitions refer to facts which are both irrelevant and immaterial and, often enough, the petitioner is unable to restrain him.
377 of 1955 and 164 and 423 of 1956.
Though it would have been possible to deal with these petitions companylectively by delivering a, companymon judgment, we would prefer to deal with the matter separately and companysider the points raised in each petition by itself.
377 of 1955 and 164 of 1956.
self from making unjustified and irrelevant suggestions against the authorities.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTI0N Petitions Nos.
Subsequently, the documents including the licences which had been seized were returned to the petitioner.
They are extremely diffused and in many places incoherent.
Even in regard to the claim ultimately made by the petitioner, it is number easy to find what exactly the petitioners grievance is and what particular writ he seeks to obtain from this Court.
The period during which the licences granted to him companyld have been operated upon has expired and the petitioner, in one of his petitions, seeks an order from this Court direct ing the Government to revalidate the licences so as to allow the petitioner to import the article in question during the unexpired period of his licences.
The goods arrived in Bombay in March and April 1953 and they were companyfiscated by the Collector of Customs in May and June 1953.
During the companyrse of this investigation, certain documents were seized from the petitioner companys office as well as from the office of one Messrs N. Jivanlal Co. at Bombay.
It transpired that a person carrying on business in the name of Messrs. N. Jivanlal Co., had a free hand in dealing with the licences of the petitioner and that the petitioner used only to receive companymission for the imports that he allowed to be made in the name of Messrs Bhatnagars Co., Ltd. In regard to the two companysignments of 100 tons and 20 tons of soda ash respectively, it was found on an inspection of the documents that the same had been imported by Messrs N. Jivanlal Co., and since Messrs N. Jivanlal Co., held numberlicence, the companysignments were seized by the Collector of Customs.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, B. Sen and R. Dhebar, for respondents in Petitions Nos.
The offices of the petitioner and Messrs N. Jivanlal Co., were raided during the companyrse of this investigation on November 7,1952 and February 6, 1953, respectively.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, Porus Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, for respondents in Petitions Nos.
The present petitions show obvious traces of unskilled draftsmanship.
42 and 46 of 1956.
Statements of fact are number logically or chronologically made and there is companyplete companyfusion in the narration of the story giving rise to the petitioners claim.
Though five petitions have been presented by the petitioner, his grievance substantially is against the companyfiscation of the companysignments of soda ash and against the seizure of his licences by the investigating authorities Each petition seeks to put the grievance of the petitioner in a different form and, though the prayers ultimately made are also number of the same pattern, in the main, the petitioner wants this Court to give him relief against what he regards as illegal seizure of the goods and against the virtual invalidation of his licences for import.
J. Umrigar and Y. Kumar, for petitioner in Petitions Nos.
The companyplaint made against the petitioner that he was trafficking in licences was companyfirmed by this investigation.
February 21.
The companyfiscation of the goods was challenged by the petitioner by preferring an appeal to the Central Board of Revenue.
423 of 1956 in a sense stands apart from the other petitions in the present group.
The petitioner had made a similar petition to this Court, No.
50,00,000 during the free licensing period in 1952.
In pursuance of this licence, and relying on the same, companysignments of soda ash to the extent of 100 tons, 200 tons and 20 tons respectively were received at Bombay but meanwhile the Customs Authorities had received information that, though the petitioner had obtained a licence in his name for the import of soda ash for such a large amount as Rs.
50,00,000, his capital did number exceed Rs.
