High Court’s power to issue.

This is an appeal from the judgment of Balakrishna Iyer, J., disposing of two writ petitions filed by the respondent H. V. Jain (W.P. Nos. 107 and 216 of 1958). The material facts are not in dispute. The respondent was a partner in a firm named Messrs. Sha Bhagajee Sonmull, Madras. The firm consisted of four partners and was doing business principally in import of various articles. The firm was recognised as an established importer in respect of the articles which it used to import. Owing to differences between the partners the firm was dissolved on and from 21st November, 1956. After dissolution, the respondent and the three partners submitted their applications individually for licences against quota rights of the dissolved firm. They were informed that their applications would be considered after the approval of the Chief Controller of Imports for transfer of quota rights. The licences applied for were for periods July to December, 1956, and January to June, 1957. By an order, dated 9th April, 1957, the Chief Controller approved the transfer of quota rights. The order was communicated to the firm by a letter which ran as follows: -

“ Gentlemen,

With reference to the correspondence resting with your telegram, dated the 1st April, 1957, on the above subject, I write to say that instructions have been issued to the licensing authorities to the effect that quota licences admissible to the dissolved partnership of Messrs. Sha Bhagajee Sonmull Madras, standing in their name should, in future be divided in equal ratio, viz., 25 per cent. each between Bhagajee Sagarmal, Messrs. Sha Sonmull Vittajee, Messrs. Sha Suganraj Vittajee and Messrs. H. V. Jain and that no licences should be issued to the dissolved firm or to any of the newly formed proprietary concerns in excess of What they are entitled to on the basis of the above stated percentage.

You may now submit all the quota certificates of the dissolved firm before the concerned licensing authority for necessary endorsement.

Yours faithfully,

(F. Singh),

Assistant Controller,

For Chief Controller of Imports and Exports.”

The Joint Chief Controller of Exports and Imports, Madras, who was the licensing authority granted licence to the respondent for January to June, 1057 but rejected his applications for July to December, 1956. The ground on which it was refused is contained in the communication, dated 10th January, 1958 and it runs as follows:-

“ With reference to the above I write to say that the matter has been carefully considered in this office but it is regretted that your request for the issue of licence for the period, July to December, 1956 cannot be acceded to since the transfer of quota rights in your favour has been recognised by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi, only after the expiry of the licensing period to which your application relates apart from the fact that the item is currently banned.”

Thereupon the respondent filed the two writ petitions mentioned above. In W.P. No. 107 of 1958 he prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Joint Chief Controller of Exports and Imports, Madras, to issue import licences to the petitioner on the basis of his succeeding to the share of the licences in the dissolved partnership firm of Sha Bhagajee Sonmull as and from 21st November, 1956. W.P. No. 216 of 1958 was for the issue of a similar writ of mandamus in respect of certain articles on the same basis (the date given as 21st November, 1956, is admittedly a mistake for 26th November, 1956). In the affidavit in support of the petition it was alleged that as the change in the firm consequent on the dissolution took place in November 1956, the right to succeed to the quotas accrued as and from the said date and the approval by the Chief Controller was only administrative and could not confer or create legal rights from any particular date. The Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras, who was the respondent filed an affidavi