Judgment

SARKARIA, J. :- In these four writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, the parties and the basic questions for determination are the same. They will therefore be disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The petitioner-firm is dealing the manufacture of automobile parts, wires and cables. The petitioner made four applications on November 5, 1969, March 23, 1970, November 5, 1970 and November 6, 1970, for the grant of licences to import stainless steel sheets and electrolytic, copper wire bars, for the period April-March 1970 and April-March 1971. At the time of the receipt of the first application dated November 5, 1969, Respondent 3 (Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Hyderabad) received some complaints that the petitioner firm was mis-utilizing the imported material. After a preliminary investigation made by the C.B.I., a First Information Report was registered on December 12, 1969 with the police against the petitioner-firm and some others in respect of the commission of offences under Section 5 of the Imports (Control) Act, 1947 read with clause 5 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1948. In the normal course, such applications should have been disposed of within three weeks of the dates on which they were received. Since the respondents did not dispose of the applications, the petitioner-firm filed four writ petitions. (Nos. 3526-3529 of 1971) in the High Court of Madras praying for the issue of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue the import licenses applied for.

3. Before the High Court, no counter-affidavit was filed by the Respondents. The High Court, instead of issuing a writ of Mandamus, directed the Respondents to consider and dispose of the applications in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. The applications were however not disposed of for another five months. On September 20, 1970, the petitioner moved the High Court for proceeding against the authorities for contempt of its order. Thereafter, on October 22, 1972, the petitioner caused a notice by registered post to be served on the respondents.

4. Respondent No. 3 then informed the petitioner-firm by his communication dated November 7, 1972, that it applications had been rejected. The reasons set out in the impugned orders were : (1) Stainless steel sheets are not allowed for the manufacture of the end product of automobile parts as their import has been prohibited in terms of the existing instructions, (2) Since the petitioner-firm was a manufacture of automobile parts "import of Electrolytic copper wire bars for end use of automobile parts is not permissible."

5. The petitioners challenge the aforesaid orders of November 7, 1972 passed by the 3rd Respondent, on the ground that in view of the Import Policy contained in the Red Book for the relevant period, they were entitled to the grant of these import licences, and that the "existing instructions" on the basis of which their applications were rejected, could not override that Import Policy. In any case, these instructions are unconstitutional; they do not amount to reasonable restrictions within the contemplation of Article 19 of the Constitution on the petitioner s right to carry on their trade. The petitioners pray that the impugned orders, dated November 7, 1972, be declared void and a Mandamus directing the respondents to issue the licences for the import of the materials in question for the licensing period, April 1969-March 1970 in favour of the petitioners.

6. At the outset, Mr. Prasad appearing on behalf of the respondents, has raised there objections: (1) Article 19(1)(g) on which the petitioners stake their claim can be availed of only by a citizen of India; the writ petition filed by the firm is therefore not maintainable; (2) Since the petitioners had no fundamental right to the grant of the licenses in question and the law in pursuance of which Respondent 3 passed the impugned order, was intra vires, the procedural irregularity or error, if any