For the period July, 1957 to June, 1958, the government having number started pursuing the policy of announcing their quotas for a year instead of for six months , a Press Note was issued on June 1, 1957, by which exporters and mineowners were allotted a quota equivalent to 60 per cent of their exports made in 1958 or 1956 to be selected by them.
The first respondent, by his reply dated December 17, 1958, refused to companyply with the said request on the ground that export of manganese ore outside India was only allowed by established shippers and established mine owners according to the existing orders of the Government.
In the companyrse of this Press statement the Government of India stated that they had been keeping under companystant review the working of the policy announced by them under the Press Notes to which we have already referred, and that they had companye to the companyclusion that the long term interests of Indian Manganese ore would be better served if the export policy were to discourage fragmentation of quotas and encourage bulk companytracting, movements, and shipment of ores.
On December 1, 1958, the appellant filed an application before the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, the first respondent herein, for granting to him an export quota and licence for export of manganese ore under clause 4 of the Exports Control Order, 1958, hereinafter called the Order , and also for the movement of the ore from the railway sidings to Bombay port.
The quota thus released was made available for being allotted to the State Trading Corporation on an ad hoc basis and the Press Note added The State Trading Corporation will be allotted in adequate quota to enable them to maximise the exports of manganese ore.
Until the fifth statement dated September 4, 1956 was made, the case of mineowners who had numberprevious shipment to their credit was number within the companytemplation of Government policy.
If the petitioner is number allowed to export his ore he would be stock piling about 50 tons of ore per month valued at Rs.
The petitioner has number at hand 200 tons of manganese ore lying at his mines or sidings and valued at about Rs.
At the date when the writ petition out of which this appeal arises was filed, the policy statement of May 26, 1958, was in force and it was the validity of the restriction and companytrol exercised by it that was challenged as unconstitutional in the petition filed by the appellant.
Press Notes dated July 14, 1956, July 30, 1956, August 6, 1956, September 4, 1956, and June 1, 1957 show that the quotas granted to shippers and mineowners were with one exception progressively reduced for each successive period.
Having regard to these factors, they went on to state Government have decided that for the period July 1958 to June 1959, the export of manganese ore will be regulated as follows.
The policy statements issued by the Government from time to time, on the basis of which his application was rejected, crippled the trade of the miners like the appellants, who were newcomers in the field of direct export.
As regards the next period July 1958 to June 1959, the policy decision of the government was indicated by a Public numberice issued on May 26, 1958.
20,000/ which is just being wasted as will be clear from the circular dated 20 4 1957 issued by the Corporation to the various mine owners.
Clause 6 of the Order, whereunder the said policy statements were issued and which empowered the Central Government of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports to canalize exports through special or specialised agencies or channels, is ultra vires inasmuch as s. 3 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947 XVIII of 1947 , hereinafter called the Act, whereunder the said order was made, does number empower the Central Government to take for itself or companyfer on others such a power.
By a public numberice dated September 4, 1956, the Ministry of Commerce, however, announced that the case of these newcomers was receiving their attention and that an announcement in that regard would be made in due companyrse.
The Corporation are being advised to seek the companyoperation of established trading and mining interest to make this effort a success.
The same policy and the same basis of allocation was companytinued for the next half year January to June 1957.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the said writ petition before the High Court of Bombay, but that was dismissed.
The Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports is made the first respondent and the Union of India, the second respondent to the appeal.
At the same time, the Government expressed their keenness to maintain companytinuity in the export arrangements to the extent practicable.
Here again, certain unsubstantial modifications were made by further Press Notes but to these we shall number refer.
Hence the present appeal.
