SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1957 Supreme(SC) 25

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
21 st February 1957
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., VENKATARAMA AYYAR, SINHA, S.K. DAS AND GAJENDRAGADKAR, JJ.
Messrs. Bhatnagars and Co. Ltd., and another, Petitioners
Versus
The Union of India and others, Respondents.
Messrs. Bhatnagars and Co. Ltd., Delhi and another, Petitioners
Versus
V. S. Venkataraman and another, Respondents.
Messrs. Bhatnagars and Co. Ltd., and another, Petitioners
Versus
S. Venkataraman and others, Respondents.
Messrs. Bhatnagars and Co. Private Ltd., Delhi and another, Petitioners
Versus
The Union of India and others, Respondents.
Messrs. Bhatnagars and Co. Private Ltd., Petitioners
Versus
 The Union of India and others, Respondents.
Petitions Nos 377 of 1955 and 42, 46,164 and 423 of 1956.
Petition No. 377 of 1955
Petition No. 42 of 1956
Petition No. 46 of 1956
Petition No. 164 of 1956
Petition No. 423 of 1956
Advocates appeared
Petitioner in person in Petns. Nos. 377 of 1955 and 164 and 423 of 1956. Messrs. H.J. Umrigar and Y. Kumar, Advocates, for Petitioners in Petns. Nog. 42 and 46 of 1956:
Mr. C.K. Daphatary, Solicitor-General of India, (Messrs. Porus A. Mehta and R.H, Dhebar, Advocates, with him), for Respondents, in Petns. Nos. 42, 46 and 423 of 1956:
Mr. C.X. Daphatary, Solicitor-General of India and Mr. B. Son, Senior Advocate, (Mr. R.H. Dhebar, Advocate with them), for Respondents, in Petns. Nos. 377 of 1955 and 164 of 1956.

Advocates:
B.SEN, C.K.DAFTARY, H.J.Umrigar, PORUS A.MEHTA, R.H.Dhebar, Y.Kumar

Headnote:DECISION OF FACTS BY AN AUTHORITY - PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 NOT CLEAR ABOUT EXACT GRIEVANCES OF PETITIONER AND PARTICULAR WRIT SOUGHT FOR - CONDITIONAL LEGISLATION PROPER AS DISTINGUISHED FROM DELEGATED LEGISLATION - IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (CONTROL) ACT, 1947, SECTION 3(1)(A)

       -held cannot be challenged as erroneous under Article 32.

       -held, relevant points are to be dealt with in disposing petition under Article 32.

       -held, if provisions of statute itself lay down the underlying principles and give guideline for enforcement of the principles, legislature can leave actual implemation, period of implementation, area for implementation, to its delegatee.

       -see decision in Bhatnagar & Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 478=1957 SCJ 546=1957 SCA 810=1957 SCR 700.

       -held, there is no excessive delegation of legislative power to render it ultra vires.

       

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR J. - This is a group of five petitions filed by the petitioners Messers Bhatnagars and Co. Private Ltd. In all these petitions, the petitioner Shri B.S. Bhatnagar, Managing Director of the above company, 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. The petitioners - seems to feel a grievance that, in the matter of licences which had been issued to him for importing soda ash, he has not received a fair treatment from the appropriate authorities and, since the impunged orders were passed, he has been moving the high Court of Punjab and this Court by several petitions under the Constitution. The present petitions show obvious traces of unskilled draftsmanship. They are extremely diffused and in many places incoherent. Statements of fact are not logically or chronologically made and there is complete confusion in the narration of the story giving rise to the petitioner s claim. In several places, the petitions refer to facts which are both irrelevant and immaterial and, often enough, the petitioner is unable to restrain himself from making unjustified and irrelevant suggestions against the authorities. Even in regard to the claim ultimately made by the petitioner, it is not easy to find what exactly the petitioner s grievance is and what particular writ he seeks to obtain from this Court. However, since the petitions purport to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court substantially under Art. 32 of the Constitution, it is necessary to deal with the relevant points in disposing of these petitions.

2. Three of the petitions have been argued by Shri Bhatnagar in person. They are Petitions Nos. 423 and 164 of 1956 and No. 377 of 1955. Petitions Nos. 42 and 46 of 1956 have been argued by Shri Umrigar on behalf of the petitioner. The material facts which it is essential to mention are very few and they lie within a very narrow compass. It appears that the petitioner obtained a licence for the import of soda ash only worth about Rs. 50, 00,000 during the free licensing period in 1952. In pursuance of this licence, and relying on the same, consignments 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 not exceed Rs. 15,000 and that he was in fact trafficking in these licences. On receiving this report, investigation was made and subsequently the matter was left in charge of the Special Police Establishment. During the course of this investigation, certain documents were seized from the petitioner- company s office as well as from the office of one Messrs. N. Jivanlal & Co. at Bombay. The complaint made against the petitioner that he was trafficking in licences was confirmed by this investigation. It transpired that 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 commission for the imports that he allowed to be made in the name of Messrs. Bhatnagars & Co. Ltd. In regard to the two consignments 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 no licence, the consignments were seized by the Collector of Customs. The offices of the petitioner and Messrs. N. Jivanlal & Co., were raided during the course of this investigation on 7-11-11952 and 6-2-1953 respectively. The goods arrived in Bombay in March and April 1953 and they were confiscated by the Collector of Customs in May and June 1953. Subsequently, the documents including the licences which had been seized were returned to the





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top