http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: J. FERNANDES & CO.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS & EXPORTS AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT07/03/1975

BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN

CITATION:  1975 AIR 1208            1975 SCR  (3) 863  1975 SCC  (1) 716  CITATOR INFO :  D          1981 SC1946  (32)

ACT: Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 73(1)(a), 239(1),  240 and 264(4)--depending on whether licence was granted  before or after liberation of Goa--Classification, if valid. Constitution  of  India,  1950,  Art.  32--Grant  of  import licence--Petitioner  not  challenging the  validity  of  the Statute or statutory orders--Wrong application of law, if  a violation of fundamental right. Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 73(1)(a), 239(1),  240 and   246(4)--Union  Territory,   administration   of--Union Government,   if   can   issue   executive   directions   to Administrator. Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Ordinance No. 2 of 1962, Ss.  3, 4 and 7 and Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration)  Act No.  1 of   1962, Ss. 4, 5 and 9--Validation of all  actions taken  in  good faith and for peace and good  Government  of Goa, Daman and Diu--Licence granted contrary to Procedure or by mistake or inadvertence. if could be validated. Constitution of India, 1950, Article 19(1)(f)--Rejection  of application for grant of import licence--Petitioner, if  can claim fundamental right to the grant of licence on the basis of a policy statement. International Law--Acquisition of new Territory by Union  of India--Rights,   if  could  be  founded  on   pre-liberation law--Central  Government (new Sovereign), if can alter  pre- existing procedure for issuing import licence.

HEADNOTE: The petitioners are a partnership firm.  They are successors to  J.  Fernandes  & Company  (Original  concern)  of  which Joshino Fernandes was the sole proprietor.  In the month  of October,  1961  the  original  concern  booked  orders   for purchase   of  Surveying  &  Mathematical  Instruments   and Surgical  & Scientific Instruments with a German firm.   The orders  were  accepted by the German firm on  7th  November, 1961.   On  19/20 December, 1961 Goa was liberated.   On  18 January,   1962   the  original  concern  applied   to   the Administrator of Goa for issuing an import licence for pound 32,652.10  for  Surveying and Mathematical  Instruments  and Surgical  and  Laboratory Equipments, along  with  necessary

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

papers of firm commitments.  The original concern obtained a licence  on 12 February, 1962.  The licence was No. 47.   It opened  a letter of credit on 21 February, 1962 for  50  per cent of the licence.  The Central Government on 21 February, 1962  informed  the  Administrator, Goa,  that  the  Central Government withheld action on all pending cases where import had  been authorised.  Pursuant thereto  the  Administrator, Goa  issued directions to suspend issue of letter of  credit and  all  cases relating to firm  commitments  entered  into before  18 December, 1961 which were till then not  disposed of, should be frozen.  On April 2, 1962 the Administrator of Goa issued a Press Note that imports into Goa, Daman and Diu would  be governed by three principles.  First import  would be  allowed in cases (a) where letters of credits  had  been opened with the Banco National Ultra Marines on or before 18 December,  1961; (b) where goods were, shipped on or  before 20  December,  1961.  Second, imports of  pertain  specified items  were  banned.   Third, imports would  be  allowed  of certain  goods  to  the extent of 50  per  cent  of  imports actually  made  in  the quarter of  September,  October  and November, 1961. The  petitioner’s licence No. 47 was revalidated on 28  May, 1962 for pound 16,000 for which the petitioner bad not  till then opened letter of credit. 868 27 February, 1962 is the date when the Administrator of  Goa suspended issue of fresh letter of credit.  In the month  of July, 1962 the petitioner effected imports of goods for the full    value. The Imports and     Exports Control Act, 1947 was applied to Goa, Daman & Diu from 1 October,   1963. In October, 1964 the original concern was taken over by  the petitioner. In 1967 the Hand Book for the year 1967 declared the  period 1 April, 1961 to 31 March, 1966 as the basic period and  any one  year during the period could be selected as  the  basic import   by  the  concerned  party  who  would  become   the established importers. On  15  May, 1967 the petitioner applied  to  the  licensing authorities  for recognising the change in the  constitution of  the  firm  and fixation of quota for  which  they  could import the goods.  The licensing authorities recognised  the change  in the constitution but refused to fix the quota  on the  ground that the original licence No. 47 granted to  the original  concern  on 12 February. 1962 was  not  issued  in accordance  with  the procedure followed for  the  issue  of licence  at  that  time.  The  petitioner  filed  an  appeal against the order.  The appeal was rejected. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for  a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to  cancel four  orders  mentioned in the petition and to  issue  quota certificate to the petitioners. It was contended for the petitioners : (i) The  petitioners’ fundamental  right  under Art. 14 is  violated  because  the respondents  discriminated  against  the  petitioners.   The respondents  granted licences to six parties.  There  is  no distinction  between  the cases of the petitioners  and  the case  of the six traders. (ii) The licence No. 47  dated  12 February,  1962 was a licence issued in accordance with  the procedure  followed for the issue of licence at  that  time. The directions of the Central Government were illegal.   The Central Government was not competent to issue directions  to the  Administrator  of Goa except through the  President  in view  of  Arts. 239 and 240 of the Constitution.  (iii)  The provisions  of  the  Goa,  Daman  and  Diu  (Administration)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

Ordinance   No.  2  of  1962,  and  Goa,  Daman   and   Diu, Administration Act 1 of 1962 cured all irregularities of the State,  if  any, for the grant of licence.   And  (iv),  the refusal to consider the application affects the  fundamental right of the petitioner to carry on trade and business. Rejecting the contentions and dismissing the writ petitions. HELD  : (i) The classification of persons with reference  to the  grant  of import licence depending on  whether  it  was granted before the liberation or after the liberation of Goa is a valid classification based on intelligible  differentia having  a rational nexus with the object of  import  licence policy.   There is no violation of Art. 14.  The  petitioner stands  on  a different footing and does not belong  to  the class  of persons who were given import licences during  the Portuguese Rule before liberation of Goa. [872 G-H] (ii) The  petitioner  does not challenge  the.  validity  of paragraph  3 3 (n) of the Hand Book of Rules  of  Procedure. There  is no challenge to the authority of the Deputy  Chief Controller  of Imports and Exports to pass an order  in  the light of paragraph 33(n) of the Hand Book. [873 C] Really,  the petitioner’s contention is that  the  licensing authorities  misapplied or wrongly applied the  Imports  and Exports  Control Act.  A petition under Art. 32 will not  be competent   to  challenge  any  erroneous  decision  of   an authority. [873 D] Gulabdas  &  Co. v. Assistant Collector of  Customs,  A.T.R. 1957 S.C. 733, State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Mir Gulam  Rasul, [1961]  3  S.C.R.  969, Smt.  Ujjam Bai v.  State  of  U.P., [1963]  1 S.C.R. 778 and Bhatnagars & Co. Ltd. v.  Union  of India, [1957] S.C.R. 701 at 712, relied on.                             869 Parliament  has  power under Art. 246(4) to make  laws  with respect to any Union Territory.  The executive power of  the Union  under Art. 73(1)(a) shall extend to the matters  with respect  to  which Parliament has power to make  laws.   The Union  Government has, therefore, power to  issue  executive directions  to the Administrator of a Union  Territory.   So long  as there is no conflict between a direction issued  by the  Central Government and a Presidential  Regulation  made under  Art. 240, the Administrator of a Union  Territory  is bound  to carry out the orders and directions given  by  the Central Government. [875 G-H] Shamsher  Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., A.I.R. 1974  S.C. 2192, referred to. There  is  no  particular statute or  Portuguese  law  which confers any right on the petitioner to get an import licence in the circumstances in which it was issued to him.  Even if pre-liberation  laws  continued to be in force  with  effect from  5  March, 1962 that would not take away power  of  the Central  Government  to  modify  or  alter  the  preexisting procedure for issuing import licences, after liberation,  in exercise  of  its executive powers under Art. 73(1)  of  the Constitution. [876 D] (iii)     Section  3  and  4  of  the  Goa,  Daman  and  Diu (Administration) Ordinance No. 2 of 1961 and Section 4 and 5 of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act No. 1 of 1962 do not support the case of the petitioner.  These provisions in  the  Ordinance and the Act came into force on  5  March, 1962.   The import licence was issued on 12  February,  1962 which is prior to the coming into force of the provisions of the Ordinance and the Act.  After the liberation of Goa  the Portuguese  laws  were  not in  force  and,  therefore.  the petitioner  cannot take recourse to the Portuguese laws  for the validity of the licence which was issued on 12 February, 1962.    The  Chief  Civil  Administrator  was   subordinate

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

authority  to the Government of India and was bound to  obey the  directions of the Central Government.  The Chief  Civil Administrator  had  no  authority  to  issue  a  licence  in disregard of the directions of the Central Government.  Such a licence would not confer any right on the petitioner. [874 C-E] State  of  Punjab  v. Jagdip Singh,  [1964]  4  S.C.R.  964, referred to. The  petitioner  cannot  draw  any  sustenance  either  from section 7 of the Ordinance or section 9 of the Act for three reasons.  First. the scope of validation is limited to  such acts  which were done in good faith and with the  reasonable belief   that  they  were  necessary  for  peace  and   good Government.   The  licence was issued  in  contravention  of lawful  directions  given by the Government of  India.   The licence  was  not issued in good faith or  in  a  reasonable belief  that  they  were necessary for the  peace  and  good Government  of Goa, Daman and Diu.  Second,  the  validation was  riot intended to protect breaches of directions  issued by the new sovereign. [874 E-G] Pama Chibar v. Union of India, [1966] 1 S.C.R. 357, referred to. Third,  in the year 1967 the Government of India  laid  down the  conditions  that  imports made  under  licences  issued through  inadvertence  or mistake in the past would  not  be considered  for issuing the import quota certificate.   This is  a  matter of policy.  The policy decision  is  also  not challenged by the petitioner.  If the policy is followed and in  a  given  case  a licence was  issued  contrary  to  the procedure or by mistake or inadvertence the decision in  the year  1968  in the light of the policy  enunciated  in  1967 cannot  be regarded erroneous simply on the ground that  the original  licence  erroneously  issued  in  1962  might   be validated under s. 7 of the Ordinance. [874 H-875 B] Revalidation  was in violation of the terms  and  conditions set  out by the Chief Civil Administrator in his Press  Note dated  2  April, 1962.  It is not correct to  say  that  the Chief  Civil Administrator revalidated the licence dated  12 February   1962   on  28  May,  1962.    The   Chief   Civil Administrator  merely extended the validity of  the  licence for  a  further  period of 90 days.  It is  not  a  case  of revalidation of a defective licence but a case of  extension of the duration of the licence. [875 C-D] 870 (iv) No materials were shown to establish that the  original concern  was a regular registered importer.  That apart,  no person can on the basis of a Policy statement claim a  right to the grant of an import licence.  This Court has held that there is no absolute right much less a fundamental right, to tile grant of an import licence.  In the present case, there is no misconstruction of any statutory provision.  It cannot be  said  that  there is no authority of law  to  reject  an application for import licence. [876 E-E; 877 C-E] Smt.   Ujjam  Bai v. State of U.P., [1963] 1 SCR  778,  M/s. Andhra  Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports  and Others,  AIR  1974, SC 1539, and Deputy Assistant  Iron  and Steel  Controller  v. L. Manickchand,  Proprietor,  Katrella Metal Corporation, Madras, [1972] 3 SCR 1, relied on. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. S.  R. Sarkar, [1961] 1  SCR 379, K. T. Moopil Nair v. The State of Kerala, [1961] 3  SCR 77, Shri Madanlal Arora v. The Excise and Taxation, Officer, [1962] SCR 823, referred to.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 615 of 1970. Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India. Y.   S.  Chitale, H. N. Ramachandra and B. R. Agarwala,  for the petitioners. P. P. Rao and S. P. Nayar, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY.,  C. J.-This writ petition is for a mandamus  directing the  respondents  to  cancel for  orders  mentioned  in  the petition  and to issue quota certificate to the  petitioners in respect of their past imports. The petitioners are a partnership firm.  The petitioners are successors  to  J.  Fernandes &  Company  of  which  Joshino Fernandes  was the sole proprietor, hereinafter referred  to as the original concern. In  the month of October, 1961 the original  concern  booked orders for purchase of Surveying & Mathematical  Instruments and  Surgical & Scientific Instruments with a  German  firm. The orders were accepted by the German firm, as will  appear from the letter dated 7 November, 1961. On  19/20  December, 1961 Goa was liberated.  Prior  Lo  the liberation  of  Goa  import licences were,  granted  to  the citizens  of Goa by a Government Department known as  "Junta do  Comercio  Externo"  which means the  Board  of  External Trade.   The original concern is alleged to be  an  importer registered  with the Junta prior to the month  of  December, 1961.   After the liberation of Goa the  representatives  of Goa  Chamber of Commerce and Industry saw the  Administrator of  Goa  with  regard to applications  for  import.   On  18 January,   1962   the  original  concern  applied   to   the Administrator of Goa for issuing an import licence for pound 32,652.10  for  Surveying and Mathematical  Instruments  and Surgical  and  Laboratory Equipments, along  with  necessary papers for firm commitments. The  original  concern obtained a licence  on  12  February, 1962.   The  licence was No. 47.  The original  concern  was allowed to import 871 instruments, microscopes, laboratory apparatus and  utensils all worth pound 32,652-10-0.  The original concern opened  a letter of credit on 21 February, 1962 for 50 per cent of the licence. The  Central  Government on 21 February, 1962  informed  the Administrator,  Goa,  that the Central  Government  withheld action   on  all  pending  cases  where  import   had   been authorised.   The  Central  Government  gave  two   reasons. First,  the Government were of the view that any  relaxation of,  import  would  result  in  serious  drain  on   foreign exchange, and second that it was difficult for any authority to  be satisfied about the firm commitments and  some  abuse was  possible.   Pursuant  thereto  the  Administrator,  Goa issued  directions to suspend issue of letter of credit  and all  cases relating to firm commitments entered into  before 18  December,  1961 which were till then, not  disposed  of, should be frozen. On  2  April, 1962 the Administrator of Goa issued  a  Press Note that imports into Goa, Daman and Diu would be  governed by  three  principles.  First, import would  be  allowed  in cases (a) where letters of credits had been opened with  the Banco National Ultra Marines on or before 18 December, 1961; (b) where goods were shipped on or before 20 December, 1961. Second,  imports  of certain specified  items  were  banned. Third,  imports  would be allowed of certain  goods  to  the extent  of  50  per cent of imports  actually  made  in  the quarter of September, October and November, 1961.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

The  petitioner’s licence No. 47 was revalidated on 28  May, 1962 for pound 16,000 for which the petitioner had not  till then opened letter of credit. 27 February, 1962 is the  date when  the Administrator of Goa had suspended to issue  fresh letter of credit. In the month of July, 1962 the  petitioner effected imports of goods for the full value. The  Imports  and Exports Control Act, 1947 was  applied  to Goa, Daman & Diu from 1 October, 1963. In October, 1964 the original concern was taken over by  the petitioner. In 1967 the Hand Book for the year 1967 declared the  period 1 April, 1961 to 31 March, 1966 as the basic period and  any one  year during the period could be selected as  the  basic import   by  the  concerned  party  who  would  become   the established importers. On  15  May, 1967 the petitioner applied  to  the  licensing authorities  for recognising the change in the  constitution of  the  firm  and fixation of quota for  which  they  could import the goods.  The licensing authorities recognised  the change  in the constitution but refused to fix the quota  on the  ground that the original licence No. 47 granted to  the original  concern  on 12 February, 1962 was  not  issued  in accordance  with  the procedure followed for  the  issue  of licence  at  that  time.  The  petitioner  filed  an  appeal against the order.  The appeal was rejected.  The petitioner filed a review application which was rejected. 872 The  petitioner’s grievances are these : First, licence  No. 47  dated  12  February,  1962  was  a  licence  issued   in accordance  with  the procedure followed for  the  issue  of licence  at  that  time.  The  directions  ,of  the  Central Government  were  illegal.  The Central Government  was  not competent  to issue directions to the Administrator  of  Goa except through the President in view of Articles 239 and 240 of  the  Constitution.  Second, the provisions of  the  Goa, Daman,   Diu  Administration  Ordinance  No.  2   of   1961, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance and Goa, Daman, Diu Administration Act 1 of 1962 hereinafter referred to as  the Act  cured all irregularities of the State, if any, for  the grant  of licence.  Third, refusal to consider the  applica- tion  affects  the fundamental right of  the  petitioner  to carry  on  trade, and business.   Fourth,  the  petitioner’s fundamental  right under Article 14 is violated because  the respondents  discriminated  against  the  petitioner.    The respondents  granted  licences to six parties.  It  is  said that  the conditions, namely, shipping before  20  December, 1961  and opening of letters of credit before  18  December, 1961 could only operate in respect of licences issued by the Portuguese Government.  When by reason of policy, these were the  conditions applied, the same should have  been  applied even to those who were given licences under the old laws  by the  Portuguese Government or those who were given  licences by  the Administrator of Goa under the operation of the  old laws.   There  is no, distinction between the cases  of  the petitioner and the case of six traders mentioned in Annexure R-4 at page 169. The contention of the petitioner that six traders have  been granted licences whereas the petitioner was not, and,  there was  violation under Article 14 is unacceptable.  These  six licences were issued before liberation between the period 12 February, 1961 and 4 December, 1961.  The six licences  were issued  prior to the liberation of Goa.  The  liberation  of Goa  was  on 19 December, 1961.  On 20  December,  1961  Goa became  a Union Territory.  The licence on which  the  peti- tioner  bases  the claim was dated 12 February,  1962.   The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

petitioner was not admittedly issued any licence before  the liberation  of Goa.  Between the liberation of Goa  and  the application of the petitioner for licence, the Government of India  issued  on  3  January,  1962  to  the  Chief   Civil Administrator, Goa certain directions regarding the issue of import licence.  The original concern had not opened  letter of credit before 18 December, 1961 and the goods in question were   not  shipped  prior  to  20  December,   1961.    The application of the petitioner was subsequent to the issue of directions dated 3 January, 1962 by the Government of  India that  imports would be allowed if letter of credit had  been opened before 18 December, 1961 or shipment had taken  place before  20  December, 1961.  The classification  of  persons with  reference to the grant of import licence depending  on whether  it was granted before the liberation or  after  the liberation  of  Goa  is  a  valid  classification  based  on intelligible  differentia having a rational nexus  with  the object  of import licence policy.  There is no violation  of Article  14.  The petitioner stands on a  different  footing and  does not belong to the class of persons who were  given import  licences  during  the  Portuguese  Rule  before  the liberation of Goa.  873 The  petitioner  challenges the orders dated  28  September, 1968 rejecting the petitioner’s application for the issue of a  quota  certificate.  The Government rejected  it  on  the ground  that licence No. 47 dated 12 February, 1962 was  not issued in accordance with the procedure prescribed for issue of  licences,  at  that  time.   The  Government  relied  on paragraph 33 (n )of the Hand Book of Rules, 1968.  In short, that  paragraph is that licence would be given only for  the basic  period  between 1 April, 1961 and 31 March,  1966  to established  importers.  The Government took the stand  that the  petitioner is not eligible because there was  no  valid licence.  The petitioner does not challenge the validity  of any  provision  of the Imports and  Exports  (Control)  Act, 1947,  or  any  provision of  any  statutory  orders  issued thereunder.  The, petitioner does not challenge the validity of  paragraph 33(n) of the Hand Book of Rules of  Procedure. There  is no challenge to the authority of the Deputy  Chief Controller  of Imports and Exports to pass an order  in  the light of paragraph 33(n) of the Hand Book. Really,  the petitioner’s contention is that  the  licensing authorities  misapplied or wrongly applied the  Imports  and Exports  Control Act.  A petition under Article 32 Will  not be  competent  to  challenge any erroneous  decision  of  an authority.  (See  Gulabdas & Co. v. Assistant  Collector  of Customs(1)  and  State  of  Jammu &  Kashmir  v.  Mir  Gulam Rasul).(2) A wrong application of law would not amount to  a violation of fundamental right.  Das, C.J. said in the  case of Gulabdas & Co. (supra) that if the provisions of law  are good  and the orders passed are within the  jurisdiction  of the authorities there is no infraction of fundamental  right if the authorities are right or wrong on facts.  In the case of  Gulabdas  & Co. (supra) the petitioners  challenged  the order  of the Assistant Collector of Customs.   The  Customs authorities  assessed  duty under Item 45(4) of  the  Indian Customs Tariff.  The petitioners in that case contended that the  duty should have been assessed under Item 45(a).   This Court   held  that  there  was  neither  any  violation   of fundamental right under Article 19 or any unequal  treatment and  the petition was not maintainable.  This Court  in  the case  of Smt.  Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P.(3) as also in  the case of Bhatnagars & Co. Ltd. v. Union of India,(4) held the same  view  that  any  erroneous decision  would  not  be  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

violation of fundamental rights. The  petitioner  relied or sections 3, 4 and 7 of  the  Goa, Daman  & Diu (Administration) Ordinance 1962.  Section 3  of the   Ordinance  in  short  stated  that   authorities   who immediately  before the commencement of this Ordinance  were exercising   lawful   functions  in  connection   with   the Administration  of  Goa, Daman and Diu or any  part  thereof shall,  unless  otherwise directed continue to  exercise  in connection   with  such  administration   their   respective functions.  Section 4 of the Ordinance speaks of continuance of  existing  laws  and their adaptation  until  amended  or repealed  by a competent legislature.  Section 7  says  that all  things  done  and all actions taken  on  or  after  the appointed day (1)  A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 733. (3)  [1963] 1 S.C.R. 778. (2)  [1961] 3 S.C.R. 969. (4)  [1957] S.C.R. 701 at 712. 874 which  was 20 December, 1961 and before the commencement  of the  Ordinance, viz., 5 March, 1962 by the Administrator  or any  other  officer which have been done or  taken  in  good faith  and in a reasonable belief that they  were  necessary for  the  peace and good Government of Goa, Daman  and  Diu, shall be as valid and operative as if they had been done  or taken in accordance with law. The  petitioner  also relied on sections 4, 5 and 9  of  the Act.    Section  4  speaks  of  officers  who   before   the commencement  of  the Act were exercising  lawful  functions would  continue  to  exercise  their  respective  functions. Section 5 of the Act speaks of continuance of existing  laws and  their  adaptation  until  amended  or  altered  by  the competent  Legislature.   Section  9 of the  Act  speaks  of validation  of certain action and indemnity of officers  for certain acts similar to section 7 of the Ordinance. Sections 3 and 4 of the Goa, Daman and Diu  (Administration) Ordinance  No.  2 of 1961 and Sections 4 and 5 of  the  Goa, Daman  and  Diu  (Administration) Act No.1 of  1962  do  not support the case of the petitioner.  These provisions in the Ordinance and the Act came into force on 5 March, 1962.  The import  licence  was issued on 12 February,  1962  which  is prior  to  the coming into force of the  provisions  of  the Ordinance  and  the Act.  After the liberation  of  Goa  the Portuguese  laws  were  not in  force  and,  therefore,  the petitioner  cannot take recourse to the Portuguese laws  for the validity of the licence which was issued on 12 February, 1962.    The  Chief  Civil  Administrator  was   subordinate authority  to the Government of India and was bound to  obey the  directions of the Central Government.  The Chief  Civil Administrator  bad  no  authority  to  issue  a  licence  in disregard of the directions of the Central Government.  Such a licence would not confer any right on the petitioner  (See State of Punjab v. Jagdip Singh) The  petitioner  cannot  draw  any  sustenance  either  from section 7 of the Ordinance or section 9 of the Act for three reasons.  First, the scope of validation is limited to  such acts  which were done in good faith and with the  reasonable belief   that  they  were  necessary  for  peace  and   good Government.   The  licence was issued  in  contravention  of lawful  directions  given by the Government of  India.   The licence  was  not issued in good faith or in  a  reason-able belief  that  they  were necessary for the  peace  and  good Government  of Goa, Daman and Diu.  Second,  the  validation was not intended to protect breaches of directions issued by the new sovereign. (See Pama Chibar v. Union of India) (2).

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

If  the  licence dated 12 February, 1962  was  validated  by section  7  of  the Ordinance that validation  would  be  an answer to any move on the part of the respondents to  cancel that  particular  licence.  What was deemed to be  valid  by legal  fiction  for a certain purpose,  notwithstanding  the infirmity  in granting it, cannot confer any right  on  the, petitioner  to  claim in future as a matter  of  right,  any import quota. (1)  [1964] 4 S.C.R.964. (2)   [1966] 1 S.C.R. 357. 875 The   validation   would  be  only  in   respect   of   past transactions.   Third,. in the year 1967 the  Government  of India  laid  down the conditions, that  imports  made  under licences issued through inadvertence or mistake in the  past would  not  be  considered  for  issuing  the  import  quota certificate.  This is a matter of policy.  Norm-ally, courts do not go into such policy decision.  The policy decision is also  not  challenged by the petitioner.  If the  policy  is followed  and in a given case a licence was issued  contrary to the procedure or by mistake or inadvertence, the decision in  the year 1968 in the light of the policy  enunciated  in 1967 cannot be- regarded erroneous simply on the ground that the  original  licence erroneously issued in 1962  might  be validated under section 7 of the Ordinance. Any  revalidation  of  the licence on 28 May,  1962  by  the Administrator  would not assist the petitioner in regard  to obtaining quota rights.  On 12 April, 1962 the Administrator himself  issued  a  Press  Note  specifying  the  conditions subject to which imports would be allowed.  Revalidation was in  violation  of the terms and conditions set  out  by  the Chief  Civil Administrator in his Press Note dated 2  April, 1962.   It  is  not  correct to say  that  the  Chief  Civil Administrator  revalidated  the licence dated  12  February, 1962  on  28-  May, 1962.  The  Chief’  Civil  Administrator merely  extended the validity of the licence for  a  further period  of 90 days.  It is not a case of revalidation  of  a defective licence but a case of extension of the duration of the  licence.   If the original licence was  defective  mere extension of the duration of the licence could not cure  the defect.   In  any  event, the protection,  if  any,  of  the validating section in the Ordinance would not extend  beyond 4 March, 1962 because the acts validated under section 7  of the Ordinance must have been done between 20 December,  1961 and 4 March, 1962. The   directions  issued  by  the  Central  Government   are impeached  by the petitioner to be in violation of  Articles 239  and 240 of the Constitution.  Under Article 1(3)(c)  of the  Constitution,  Goa, Daman and Diu became  part  of  the territory  of  India  by acquisition.  Goa,  Daman  and  Diu became  a  Union  Territory on and from the  data  of  their acquisition by the Government of lndia.  Under Article239(1) a  Union  Territory shall be administered by  the  President acting  through an Administrator.  Article 240 empowers  the President  to make regulations for the peace,  progress  and good Government of the Union Territory.  In the present case no Presidential Regulation was relied on by either side. Parliament has power under Article 246(4) to make laws  with respect to any Union Territory.  The executive power of  the Union  under Article 73 (1) (a) shall extend to the  matters with  respect  to which Parliament has power to  make  laws. The   Union  Government  has,  therefore,  power  to   issue executive  directions  to  the  Administrator  of  a   Union Territory.  So long as there is no conflict between a direc- tion  issued  by the Central Government and  a  Presidential

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

Regulation  made under Article 240, the Administrator  of  a Union  Territory  is  bound  to carry  out  the  orders  and directions given by the Central Government.  The decision of this Court in Shamsher Singh v. State 876 of  Punjab  & Anr.(1) is that the powers  conferred  on  the President  by Article 239 are to be exercised by him on  the aid  and advice of the Cabinet.  Therefore,  the  directions issued  by the Central Government are valid because  of  the combined effect of Article 73 and article 246 which  confers power  on the Union executive to exercise powers in  respect of  matters with respect to which Parliament has  competence to make laws. In  the present case, the Chief Civil Administrator  himself declared  in a Press Note dated 2 April, 1962 the terms  and conditions subject to which import licence would be granted. The  alleged revalidation of licence No. 47 in the month  of May,  1962  took  place subsequent to  the  Press  Note  and contrary  to the terms and conditions.  It was really not  a revalidation of the licence but an extension of the  period. If the licence itself was defective, there could not be  any validation  of  the  licence as was  contended  for  by  the petitioner. There  is  no  particular statute or  Portuguese  law  which confers any right on the petitioner to get an import licence in the circumstances in which it was issued to him.  Even if pre-liberation  laws  continued to be in force  with  effect from  5  March, 1962 that would not take away power  of  the Central  Government  to  modify  or  alter  the  preexisting procedure for issuing import licences, after liberation,  in exercise of its executive powers under Article 73(1) of  the Constitution. The  petitioner contended that the original concern  was  an importer registered with the Junta prior to December,  1961. The  respondents denied that allegation.  The petitioner  in the  rejoinder  alleged that it is to be presumed  that  the original importer must have been registered with the  Junta, prior  to  the  liberation.   No  materials  were  shown  to establish that the original concern was a regular registered importer.  The contention on behalf of the respondents  that the  licence  was  issued  without  following  the   regular procedure  and  by inadvertence or mistake is borne  by  the facts and circumstances of the case particularly because the Chief  Civil  Administrator had no authority  to  issue  any import  licences in contravention of the directions  of  the Central Government issued on 3 January, 1962. The petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in  M/s. Andhra  Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports  and others(2)  in support of the proposition appearing  at  page 1542  of the Report.  The proposition stated there  in  that one  of  the instances in relation to  laws  regulating  the citizen’s right to carry on trade or business guaranteed  by Article  19(1) (g) may be catalogued as where  the  impugned action  is  based on a misconstruction of  the  intra  vires statute  or is so contrary to the established  procedure  or rules  of natural justice that it results in violation of  a fundamental  right.  In the case of M/s.  Andhra  Industrial Works  (supra)  the  proposition which  was  extracted  from Ujjambai’s case (supra) is that an order of assessment  made by an authority under a taxing statute which is intra vires, cannot  be  challenged  under Article  32  as  repugnant  to Article 19 (1) (g) on the sole (1) A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 2192. (2) A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1539. 877

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

ground that it is based on a misconstruction of a  provision of  the  Act  or of a notification  issued  thereunder.   In Ujjambai’s  case  (supra) it was said that  when  assessment proceedings are repugnant to rules of natural justice  there is  an  infringement of the right guaranteed  under  Article 19(1)  (f) and 19 (1) (g).  In support of  that  proposition reference was made to Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. S.  R. Sarkar(1),  K. T. Moopil Nair v. The State of Kerala(2)  and Shri Madanlal Arora v. The Excise and Taxation Officer(3). In the case of Andhra Industrial Works. (supra) an objection was  raised on behalf of the respondents that  the  petition was  not  competent  because  there  was  no  violation   of fundamental  rights.  This Court upheld that  objection  and said that neither the Imports and Exports (Control) Act  nor any  order thereunder was alleged to be ultra vires nor  was the Import Control Policy impeached.  A policy statement was held to be not a statutory document.  No person can con  the basis of a policy statement claim a right to the grant of an import  licence.   This Court, also held that  there  is  no absolute  right much less a fundamental right, to the  grant of an import licence. This Court in Deputy Assistant Iron and Steel Controller  v. L,  Manickchand,  Proprietor,  Katrella  Metal  Corporation, Madras(4) held that no one has any vested right to an import licence  in terms of the policy in force at the time of  his application.   There is no misconstruction of any  statutory provision  in  the present case.  In the  present  case,  it cannot  be said that there is no authority of law to  reject an application for import licence. For  these  reasons, the petition fails  and  is  dismissed. Parties will pay and bear their own costs. V.M.K.                          Petition dlsmissed. (1)  [1961] 1 S.C.R. 379. (3)  [19621 1 S.C.R. 823. (2)  [1961] 3 S.C.R. 77. (4)  [1972] 3 S.C.R. 1. 878