Pathak, J. - (1.) The petitioners, M/s. Indo-Afghan Chambers of Commerce and its President, Sundar Lal Bhatia, are aggrieved by the grant of additional licences to the respondents, M/s. Rajnikant Brothers and M/s. Everest Gems for the import of dry fruits.
(2.) The petitioner, M/s. Indo-Afghan Chambers of Commerce, is an association of dealers engaged in the business of selling dry fruit in North India. The dry fruit is purchased by them either locally or through imports from outside India. The respondents, M/s. Rajnikant Brothers and M/s. Everest Gems, are diamond exporters who have been issued additional licences pursuant to an order of the Court in the following circumstances.
(3.) The respondents diamond exporters had applied for the grant of Export. House Certificates under the Import Policy 1978-79 and had been denied the Certificates on the erroneous ground that they had not diversified their exports. In writ petitions filed in the Bombay High Court. they were held entitled to the Export House Certificates. Special leave petitions filed by the Union of India against the order of the High Court were dismissed by this Court by its order dated April 18. 1985 which, while confirming the order of the High Court directed the appellants to issue the necessary Export House Certificates for the year 1978-79, and further that: "Save and except items which are specifically banned under the prevalent Import Policy at the time of import. the respondents shall be entitled to import all other items whether canalised or otherwise in accordance with the relevant rules." The respondents diamond exporters and other like diamond exporters were granted Additional Licences, and started importing goods on those Additional Licences. It is the case of the petitioners that the goods sought to be imported on the Additional Licences included those which were prohibited by the prevalent Import Policy. The diamond exporters commenced the Import of acrylic ester monomers. This was challenged by M/s. Raj Prakash Chemicals Ltd., an Indian company manufacturing acrylic ester monomers in India, by a writ petition in the Bombay High Court seeking a clarification of the order dated April 18, 1985 of this Court mentioned earlier. The High Court rejected the writ petition, and an appeal by Special Leave filed by the Indian company was disposed of by this Court by its order dated March 5, 1986. The Court held that it was not permissible for the diamond exporters to import acrylic ester monomers under the Additional Licences granted to them during the period of the Import Policy 1985-86, but having regard to the circumstance that the High Courts had already passed orders permitting such import and further that the Import Control Authorities had specifically allowed such import this Court permitted such imports to be completed in respect of which irrevocable Letters of Credit had been opened and established before October 18, 1985, the date on which for the first time an order was made by the Court imposing a restriction on the clearing of acrylic ester monomers by the Customs authorities. The Court regarded the date October 18,1985 as a critical date because the diamomd exporters could be said to have been warned on and from that date that the Court could possibly take a different view from that prevailing during the period before that date when, because of the orders of the High Courts and the conduct of the Import Control Authorities, the diamond exporters could have legitimately believed that they were entitled to effect such imports. It was made clear by the Court that cases in which irrevocable Letters of Credit had been opened and established after October 18, 1985 would not be entitled to the benefit of that order. The petitioners contend. that the principle which was applied to the import of acrylic ester monomers extends likewise to the import of all other commodities under Additional Licences granted to diamond exporters in similar circumstances. It is asserted that the respondents diamond exporters and other like diamond exporters began to import dry fruit under their Additional Licences. It is contended that having regard to the terms of the order of this court dated April 18, 1985, as construed and clarified by its order dated March 5, 1986 the diamond exporters are not entitled to import dry fruit.;