The refusal to issue an import permit due to prior criminal conduct justified the State's actions, negating the plaintiff's claim for damages.

JUDGMENT :

G.Jayachandran, J.

The appeal suit filed by the defendants, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Court, Mahe, in O.S.No.32 of 2015.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- with 12% interest, claimed as damages from the Government of India and Secretary to Union Territory of Puducherry, for not issuing import permit and thereby caused loss of profit.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as per their status and ranking shown in the plaint.

4. The plaintiff is a dealer in liquor in the Mahe region of the Union Territory of Puducherry. Since 1970, the plaintiff is in business and being granted FL-1 License. He was also granted import permit for F.L (Foreign Liquor) to enable him to import from the manufactures of FL.

5. According to the plaintiff, till 1994, he had the import permit and the FL-I license which enabled him to import FL and sell it in wholesale and retail. However, due to a criminal case registered against him for allegedly forging documents related to the import of FL, the import permit was not renewed from 1994. His FL-I license been renewed by collecting the required fees but without import license, he was not able to do business effectively.

6. The plaintiff contends that the Managing Partner of the plaintiff firm was falsely implicated in the criminal case (S.C.No.36 of 1994) and later ended in acquittal. In spite of several applications for issuance of import permits between 02.01.1996 and 18.11.2004, the plaintiff was not granted import permits. While the FL-I license to sell liquor was granted after collecting huge fees, the denial of import permits was in violation of Clause 11 of License in force and tantamount to malafide exercise of power without jurisdiction. The import permits was granted to him only after filing of writ of mandamus before the High Court. However, in view of denial of import permits for the period between 02.01.1996 to 18.11.2004, the plaintiff claims that the business output and turn over of the wholesale business and the profit likely to have been earned is estimated at Rs.25,00,000/-. Therefore, the defendants are liable to pay the damages to compensate for the presumptive loss in business and income.

7. The State contested the suit by filing written statement, wherein it has been stated that the plaintiff has no right to claim any damages from the defendants. While FL-I license is in the name of P.Sankaran Nair and not in the name of Vinoth Foreign Liquors or its representative, O.P.Sivadasan. The suit by O.P.Sivadasan not maintainable. When notice was issued claiming damages, the defendants have suitably replied. The plaintiff, M/s.Vinod Foreign Liquor, Mahe, came under adverse notice of the Excise Commissioner when the import documents presented by them were found to be forged. Consequently, a criminal case was registered in Crime No.29/1995 against O.P.Sivadasan, the representative of the plaintiff firm M/s.Vinod Foreign Liquors, Mahe. Till the criminal case ended in acquittal M/s.Vinod Foreign Liquor or its representatives were not entitled for import permit.

8. The defendants contends that the claim of the plaintiff is an artificial and imaginary one, without any cause of action. Since the FL-I license holder is not the plaintiff, there can be no reason to claim that refusal to issue import permit to the plaintiff had caused damages. Furthermore, the suit is clearly barred by limita