MEHTA GEMS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner No. 1 are a partnership firm carrying on business of importing rough diamonds and carrying the operation of cutting and polishing and thereafter exporting the same. The petitioners are a Small-Scale Industry duly registered with the Director of Small-Scale Industries. The Union of India published the Import Policy for the year 1981-82 and the said policy laid down the provisions pertaining to registration of Export Houses. Paragraph 173 of this Policy provides that the objective of the scheme of registration of Export Houses and the grant of special facilities to them is to strengthen their negotiating capacity in foreign trade and to build up more enduring relationship between them and their supporting manufacturers. Paragraph 183 of the Policy sets out the import facilities available to the Export Houses, which inter alia includes import replenishment (REP) licences and additional licences, etc. Paragraph 174 of the Scheme provides the eligibility for the grant of Export House Certificates. It lays down that the eligibility shall be determined on the basis of the exports actually made in the three years base period 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81. Paragraph 175 provides that the applications will be considered subject to the conditions laid down thereafter, and for the present petition the first there conditions are only relevant, and they are as follows :

(2.) In accordance with the scheme published by the respondents, the petitioners submitted an application for grant of an Export House Certificate for the year 1981-82 along with the necessary annexures and supporting documents. The application included the statement of f.o.b. value of exports for the three base years and the f.o.b. value for each of these three years was as follows : 1978-79 .. Rs. 76,00,491.28 1979-80 .. Rs. 10,97,973.06 1980-81 .. Rs. 2,88,129.87 The application made by the petitioners was turned down by the Controller of Imports and Exports and the same was communicated to the petitioners by letter dated February 17, 1982, a copy of which is annexed as Exhibit 'H' to the petition. The letter recites that the Controller was unable to accede to the request of the petitioners since there has been a steep fall in the exports from year to year during the base period. Certain correspondence passed between the petitioners and the respondents, wherein the petitioners requested for reconsideration of the claim. The Controller informed the petitioners by letter dated March 30, 1982 that the decision already communicated cannot be altered. The petitioners have thereafter approached this Court by filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and seek the relief of quashing of the order passed by the Controller and for writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the Export House Certificate pursuant to the application dated April 10, 1981.

(3.) At the stage of admission of the petition, Shri G. R. Nair, Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, filed a return sworn on October 13, 1982. After the admission of the petition, no fresh affidavit has been filed, though it was directed that the petition should be heard along with Miscellaneous Petition No. 1458 of 1979, which I have disposed of to-day by Judgment. Shri Sethna, appearing on behalf of the respondents, applied for an adjournment to enable his clients to file an affidavit, but I declined to grant any time in view of the earlier order of this Court that this petition must be heard along with Miscellaneous Petition No. 1458 of 1979. There is no reason why the respondents did not file their return earlier. Shri Sethna requested that the affidavit filed at the stage of admission of the petition by the respondents should be taken into consideration while considering the claim of the petitioners.