http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: STAR DIAMOND CO. INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/09/1986

BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) PATHAK, R.S.

CITATION:  1987 AIR  179            1986 SCR  (3) 781  1986 SCC  (4) 246        JT 1986   413  1986 SCALE  (2)406  CITATOR INFO :  F          1987 SC1794  (14,15,23)  RF         1992 SC 248  (44)

ACT:      Import Policy  1985-88: Holders  of Additional Licences for 1978-79  - Whether  entitled to  import both ’canalised’ and  ’non-canalised’   items-Effect  and  interpretation  of Courts order.      Constitution of  India, Article  141; Court’s  decision laying down position in law binding on all.      Administrative law.      Administrative  instructions-Whether   create  estoppel against subsequent directions.

HEADNOTE:      This Court  by its order dated 18th April 1985 in Union of India  v. Rajnikant Bros. (Civil Appeal No. 1423 of 1984) directed that  save and except items which were specifically banned under  the prevalent  Import Policy  at the  time  of import, parties  would be entitled to import all other items whether ’canalised’  or ’uncanalised’ and in accordance with the relevant  rules. The effect of this direction came to be considered in  Raj Prakash Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, [1986] 2 SCC 297, and M/s. Indo Afghan Chamber of Commerce & Ors. v.  Union of  India, (AIR 1986 SC 1567). The effect has also been  explained in  Union of India v. M/s. Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd., (S.L.P.No. 8144 of 1986).      The applicant  was neither  a party nor was served with any notice  of the  aforesaid proceedings.  The  respondents having not  permitted clearance  of its goods in view of the decisions in  Prakash’s case  and  Indo  Afghan  Chamber  of Commerce’s case  the applicant  filed  petitions  contending that it was not bound by the directions contained therein.      Disposing of the petitions, the Court, ^      HELD: Decisions  of this Court laying down the position in law, are laws binding on all. [782 G] 782      Whether importation of canalised items would be covered by the  order was  not adverted  to in the first order dated 18th April,  1985. Use  of the expression "Whether canalised

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

or not"  was intended to convey that both canalised and non- canalised items  would be  covered within  the ambit  of the order. [783 G]      The position  has been  clarified by  the  respondent’s letter dated June 18, 1986. The Government of India’s letter dated April  23, 1986  which is  not in  consonance with the subsequent direction,  would  not  in  any  way  affect  the position or  create any  estoppel. Nor  can such a letter be used  as   an  argument   that  that  was  the  Government’s understanding of the matter. [783 H: 784 A-B]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION:  Civil  Misc.  Petitions Nos. 20021-22 of 1986.                              in      Civil Appeal No. 2924 of 1984.      From the  Judgment and  order dated  22.7.1983  of  the Delhi High Court in W.P. No. 963 of 1982.      S.N. Kacker, P.M. Amin, Atul, B. Munim and Ashok Grover for the Applicant.      A.K. Ganguli,  Miss Sushma Relan and Miss A. Subhashini for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. These two Civil Misc. Petitions are  by  Star  Diamond  Company  India.  The  applicant  has referred to  the judgments  of this  Court in  Raj Prakash’s case [1986]  2 SCC 297 dated 5th March, 1986 and Indo Afghan Chamber of  Commerce’s case AIR 1986 SC 1567 dated 15th May, 1986. The  applicant states that the applicant was neither a party nor was served with any notice of the said proceedings resulting in the. said two decisions. According to the applicant, it  was not  bound by  the directions therein. We are unable to accept the said contentions. Such decisions of Court laying  down the  position in  law are laws binding on all.      In the  order of this Court dated 18th April, 1985, the question of 783 entitlement  under   certain  circumstances   came  up   for consideration. The  Government  had  wrongfully  refused  to allow  Export  House  Certificates  to  those  who  had  not diversified  their  exports.  It  was  held  by  this  Court following the decisions of several High Courts that this was wrong. This  Court in  the order  dated 18th  April, 1985 in Civil Appeal  No. 1423  of 1984, (a) confirmed the orders of the  High   Court,  quashed   the  impugned  orders  of  the Government and  directed the  Government to  issue necessary Export House  Certificates for  the year 1978-79; (b) It was further directed  that Export  House Certificates  should be granted within  three months  from this  date. (c)  Save and except  items  which  are  ’specifically  banned  under  the prevalent import policy at the time of import’, the parties- the merchants  would be  entitled to  import all other items whether canalised or uncanalised, and in accordance with the relevant rules.  Both canalised  and uncanalised items could be imported  in accordance  with the  relevant rules  except those which  were specifically  banned under  the  prevalent import policy  at the  time of  import. The  effect of  this direction came  to be  considered in  Raj Prakash  Chemicals Ltd. v.  Union of India (supra). We have this date explained the effect of the same in Union of India v. M/s Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd  & Anr.,  (Civil Appeal  No. 3418/86 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8144 of 1986). This question further came up

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

for examination  in the  case of  M/s Indo Afghan Chamber of Commerce & Ors. v. Union of India, (Writ Petition No. 199 of 1986) (supra).  This day we have also in the judgment in M/s Godrej Soap’s  case explained  the true  purport of the said decision.      The respondents  have not  permitted, according  to the applicant clearance  of the  goods in  view of  the said two decisions referred to hereinbefore.      The case  of the  applicant is  that it is not bound as the applicant  was neither  a party  to any of the aforesaid proceedings nor  any notice  was given.  We  are  unable  to accept this  position. For  what we  held in  the  said  two decisions,  we   crave  leave  to  refer  to  the  said  two decisions. We  reiterate as  we have mentioned in M/s Godrej Soaps’ case  whether importation of canalised items would be covered by  the order was not adverted to in the first order dated 18th  April, 1985.  Use  of  the  expression  "whether canalised or not" was intended to convey that both canalised and non-canalised items would be covered within the ambit of the order.      The position  has been  clarified by  the letter  dated 18th June,  1986 written  by the respondent which appears at page 132 of the Paper 784 Book. It  has been  mentioned that the holders of additional licence issued  for 1978-79 would be entitled to import only those goods  which are  included in Appendix 6 Part 11 of AM 85-88.  The  fact  that  the  Additional  Secretary  to  the Government of  India, Ministry  of  Finance  (Department  of Revenue) on  23rd April, 1986 wrote a letter which is not in consonance with  the subsequent  direction would  not in any way affect the position or create any estoppel. Nor can such a  letter   be  used  as  an  argument  that  that  was  the government’s  understanding   of   the   matter.   That   is irrelevant.      In the  premises the  interim order prayed for in these applications is refused.      The applications are thus disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. P.S.S. 785