Judgment

DAS GUPTA, J. (For himself, Sinha, C.J.I., and Gajendragadkar and J. C. Shah, JJ.) : The first petitioner is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office in Bombay and is engaged in the business of dyes, chemicals, plastics, and various other goods, the second petitioner is the Chairman and a Director of the first petitioner Company. In this petition for enforcement of fundamental rights under the Constitution they pray for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing an order made by the first respondent, the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Government of India, New Delhi, by which he cancelled five import licences which had been granted to the first petitioner by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay. There is also a prayer for an order on the second respondent, the Collector of Customs, Bombay directing him to assess the goods of the petitioner Company which have been landed in Bombay having been imported on the strength of these licences and allow the petitioner company to clear them. Of these five licences, two were dated 24-7-1958, two dated 16-8-1958, and the fifth dated 4-9-1958. The total value of the imports authorised by these five licences was Rs. 25,75,000. The petitioners contend that these five licences were granted to the petitioner Company on five applications sent by them by registered post to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Government of India, New Delhi- three sent on 17-6-1958, one on 26-6-1958, and the last on 22-7-1958. It is further stated that in respect of each of these applications a letter was received by the Company from the office of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Government of India, New Delhi, intimating that their application had been forwarded to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay with the necessary comments and asking the Company to contact this officer, the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay direct in the matter. The petitioner Company wrote in each case to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi, acknowledging receipt of these letters and at the same time to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay, requesting that the licences should be issued to them at an early date. After the licences were received by the Company the office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay, the Company placed orders for the goods covered by these licences & some of the goods actually arrived at Bombay. Before however any of these goods could be cleared the Company received a notice dated 24-9-1958, stating that whereas there was reason to believe that these five licences had been obtained fraudulently, the Government in the exercise of the powers specified in para. 9 of the Imports Control Order, 1955, proposed to cancel the said licences unless sufficient cause against that was furnished to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi, within 10 days of the date of the issue of the said notice. On September 26, the petitioner Company s solicitors sent a telegram to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi, requesting him to give particulars of the alleged fraud and to give them an appointment for inspection of papers and documents relied upon by him. On September 27, the Company wrote a letter to the same officer in which they gave a written explanation pointing out various facts and stating that they were victims of foul play by some person interested in causing damage to them and involving their reputation and in order to bring them in bad books with the authorities. In the concluding portion of this letter the Company stated : "We also reserve our right to add to, amend or alter the explanations contained in this letter hereafter and to submit such further explanations as may become necessary after taking inspection of all the papers and after getting