9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction 2. Maintainability of Review Application 3. Authority to Exercise Review Powers 4. Scope of Review Powers Detailed Analysis: 1. Territorial Jurisdiction: The core issue was whether the Bombay High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The respondent argued that the impugned order was passed in Delhi, and the entire cause of action arose there. The court, however, concluded that since the petitioners were carrying on business in Bombay and the consequences of the impugned order were felt in Bombay, part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. The court referenced Article 226(2) of the Constitution and cited the case of Damomal v. Union of India, which supported the view that the impact of an order on the petitioner's business in Bombay was sufficient to confer jurisdiction. 2. Maintainability of Review Application: The petitioners contended that the Apparel Export Promotion Council (respondent No. 4) could not be considered a "person aggrieved" under Para 155(2) of the Hand Book of Import & Export Procedures, thus making the review application invalid. The court agreed that a "person aggrieved" typically refers to someone whose rights have been adversely affected, not merely a party dissatisfied with a decision. However, the court noted that the general power of review under Para 156 was broad enough to include applications from parties like respondent No. 4, thus the review application was maintainable. 3. Authority to Exercise Review Powers: The petitioners argued that the review powers under Paras 155(2) and 156 could only be exercised by the Chief Controller of Imports & Exports, not by the Additional Chief Controller. The court agreed, noting that the discretionary nature of the review powers meant they could not be delegated. The court found no justification for importing the definition of "Chief Controller of Imports & Exports" from the Exports (Control) Order, 1977, into the Hand Book. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Additional Chief Controller was deemed without jurisdiction and set aside. 4. Scope of Review Powers: The petitioners argued that the review powers should be limited to grounds similar to those under Order 47 Rule 1 or Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that the respondent No. 1 had exceeded these powers by reappreciating facts and evidence. The court agreed, stating that the review should be limited to correcting glaring omissions, patent mistakes, or errors apparent on the face of the record. The court cited Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Bibi Nazma v. R.P. Sinha to support this view. The court concluded that respondent No. 1 had overstepped his jurisdiction by effectively conducting an appellate review, thus the impugned order was set aside. Conclusion: The petition was allowed, and the order dated 27th July 1987 was struck down. The order dated 25th November 1986, which had set aside the deregistration, was restored. The court also stayed its order for four weeks to allow the respondent to appeal.
|
