Bose, J. - (1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 45, Specific Relief Act, for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing certain orders made by the respondents refusing to grant import licences for cloves and betel-nuts and also for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to deal with and consider certain applications of the petitioner's firm for import licences for cloevs and betel-nuts, on merits and in accordance with law.
(2.) The petitioner No. 1 Haji Sattar has been carrying on the business inter alia of importers and wholesale dealers for the last 17 years under the name and style, of Haji Sattar Haji Pir Mohammed. The principal place of business of the said firm is at 23, Amratola Lane Calcutta. The petitioner No. 1 is the owner of the said premises and while in Calcutta he resides at the said premises. The said firm has branches at Bombay, Madras, Kanpur, Agra, Delhi, Bhatinda, "Vizianagaram, Cochin, Calicut, Jamnagar, Penang & Singapore. The petitioner No. 1 lives at various places and manages the business of the firm through managers or agents. Until recently, one Essa Kaji Baud was the Manager of the petitioner No. 1 but on or about 18-8-1950 the petitioner No. 2, Adam Kara has been appointed as the agent of the petitioner No. 1 for managing the said business in the State of West Bengal. It is alleged that the petitioner No. 2 is also a working partner of the said firm Haji Sattar Haji Pir Mohammed and is remunerated by _a share of profits thereof. The case of the petitioner No. 1 is that he was born of Indian parents in the State of Saurashtra and owns extensive immoveable properties at various places in India. He is a member of the Indian Chamber of Commerce, Muslim Chamber of Commerce, Indian Produce Association and other associations at Calcutta and is recorded as a voter in the municipal and Parliamentary Electoral Rolls for the constituency comprising the said premises No. 23, Amratola Lane, Calcutta. The firm of the petitioners is assessed to Income-tax under Indian Income-tax Act and also to Sales Tax under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act. The petitioner' No. 1 pays rates and taxes to the Corporation of Calcutta with respect to his property at 23, Amratola Lane and also holds trading licence granted by the said Corporation of Calcutta. From the year 1933 to 1946, the petitioner No. 1 imported various goods including foodstuffs, spices, mineral cils, yarns, salt, sugar etc., and the value of such imports was about Rs. 50 lakhs per every accounting year. Since 15-8-1947, the petitioner's firm as an Established Importer on various goods applied for and regularly obtained in the usual course import licences or quotas for various goods for import through the port of Calcutta, till the half-yearly period January-June 1951. There were two applications made for import licences for the period January-June 1951--one for importing cloves from Zanzibar to Calcutta and the other for importing betel-nuts from Penang and Singapore to Calcutta. The said applications were made on 4-1-1951 and 6-2-1951 respectively. In response to these applications an import licence dated 1-2-1951 for cloves and an import licence dated 9-3-1951 for betel-nuts were granted by the respondents in favour of the said firm of the petitioners. Subsequently, upon request of the petitioners, the respondents duly validated both the above licences for double the value of the goods specified therein and extended the validity of the licences by six months. On or about 9-6-1951 the Deputy Custodian (Judicial) of Evacuee Property at Lucknow declared the petitioner No. 1 as an evacuee under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1950 (31 of 1950) and the said firm of the petitioner was declared as evacuee property. As a result thereof the petitioners have ceased to carry on any business in Saurashtra, Kanpur, Madras, Travancore-Cochin and Uttar Pradesh. On 21-9-1951 the firm of the petitioners applied for supplementary import licences for the period July-December 1951 for importing cloves from Zanzibar and for importing betel-nuts from Penang and Singapore. The respondents, however, by their letters dated 3-10-1951 and 26-10-1951 refused to grant the said supplementary licences on the ground that the petitioner No. 1 had been declared an evacuee and his said firm had been declared evacuee property under the said Administration of Evacuee Property Act. The petitioners thereafter applied for reconsideration of the matter but this was not done. On 30-4-1952 the said firm again applied for import licence for betel-nuts for the period January-June 1952 but by a letter dated 13-6-1952 the respondents rejected the application on the ground that the firm had been declared defunct under the Evacuee Property Act. On 14-7-1952 the firm again applied for import licence for betel-nuts for the period July-December 1952 but the said application was not considered by the respondents. It is stated that before rejecting the petitioner's application for import licence an opportunity should have been granted to the petitioners to make representations and to be heard in respect of the matter and the orders refusing the licence are bad as they are based on extraneous and irrelevant considerations and in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further stated that it is incumbent upon the respondents to consider the pending applications on merits and in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the matter and to grant the licences asked for by the petitioners.
(3.) Mr. Santosh Kumar Basu, the learned Advocate for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners' firm as an Established Importer has a right to get the import licences applied for, and as the conditions precedent for getting the licences have been satisfied, the respondents had no justifiable reasons for refusing the licences. Mr. Basu has referred to the Gasette of India (Extraordi- | nary) Publication of the Public Notice No. 101 dated 15-12-1950, and argues with reference to Paragraph 4(a) of Section 1 and Para. 23 of Section II thereof (Page 631) that established importers are entitled to be allotted quotas of licences based on their past imports. It is also submitted by Mr. Basu that the applicant for the licences having duly complied with the procedure for obtaining such licences and having presented the applications which are complete in all respects, there is no scope for the respondents to refuse to grant the licenses asked for. Mr. Basu points out that the only grounds on which licences can be refused are in cases which fall within Paras. 8 and 9 (Page 633) or when there is non-compliance with the requirements of Paras. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. 17, 35 and other paragraphs of the Public Notice.;