Ayyangar J. - (1.) (B. P.Sinha C. J., Rajagopala Ayyangar And Mudholkar JJ.) -This appeal comes before us by virtue of a certificate of fitness granted by the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Bombay under Arts. 132 (1) and 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution. It arises out of a petition filed by the appellant under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur impugning the constitutional validity of certain notifications and directions issued under the Exports and Imports Act, 1947 and the Export Control Order, 1958 framed thereunder and substantially prayed that the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay - impleaded as the first respondent - should be directed to consider the application of the appellant for the grant of a licence to enable him to export certain manganese ore which he had won from his mines, without reference to the impugned notifications. This petition was dismissed by the learned Judges of the High Court who, however, granted the appellant a certificate which has enabled him to file this appeal.
(2.) A few facts are necessary to be stated to appreciate the exact grievance of the petitioner and the grounds upon which the notifications etc. issued by government are stated to contravene the Constitution and particular to infringe the freedom granted to the appellant under Part III of the Constitution. The appellant is a lessee of certain manganese mines in two areas of Madhya Pradesh. The leases are stated to have been granted to him in the years 1952 and 1955 for a period of 20 years each, with an option for renewal if the appellant so desired, under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, for a like period. It is an admitted fact that the internal demand for manganese ore in India is very, inconsiderable, so that the ore is extracted mostly for the purpose of being exported out of India. Having regard to the date when the appellant obtained the mining leases, he could not have won any appreciable quantity of the metal during 1953, nor, of course, could he have exported any quantity of the ore won by him in or prior to the year 1953.
(3.) It is now necessary to set out the history of the restrictions on the export of manganese ore from 1953 up to the date relevant to the petition to understand the points sought to be made on behalf of the appellant. Prior to 1953, i.e., at a time before the appellant entered the manganese ore business, export of manganese ore was freely licensed, i.e., the commodity was subject to no restriction as regards export, nor was any control exercised by government on the allotment of wagons for the movement of manganese ore. As the export of the ore began to expand from that date, the Railways found themselves unable to meet to increased demand for wagons and were forced to regulate the allotment of such wagons. The government also took a hand in regulating the movement of wagons by evolving a system of registration of shippers for whom priority in the allotment of wagons was ensured. It has to be added that this regulation and control over wagon allotment and wagon movement was co-ordinated with and correlated to certain changes which were effected for regulating the export of the commodity itself.;