1991 (4) TMI 260 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the action taken by respondents 2 and 3 in respect of two additional import licenses.
2. Petitioner's locus standi to file the writ petition.
3. Applicability of the Import & Export Policy 1990-93 to the licenses in question.
4. Doctrine of promissory estoppel and vested rights.
5. Allegations of mala fides against the 2nd respondent.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the action taken by respondents 2 and 3 in respect of two additional import licenses:
The petitioner-firm challenged the notices issued by the 2nd respondent requesting the 1st respondent to forward two additional import licenses for cancellation. The petitioner argued that the action was illegal, without jurisdiction, and not in conformity with the provisions of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955. The court found that the 2nd respondent did not have the authority to call for the licenses or suspend them without initiating proper proceedings under Clause 9(3) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned notices and the suspension order.

2. Petitioner's locus standi to file the writ petition:
The court held that the petitioner had locus standi to file the writ petition. It was undisputed that the licenses in question were transferable and that the petitioner had submitted the highest offer for the licenses, paid the earnest money deposit, and the full balance consideration. The court rejected the preliminary objections raised by the respondents regarding the petitioner's locus standi and the writ petition being premature.

3. Applicability of the Import & Export Policy 1990-93 to the licenses in question:
The court examined whether the new Import & Export Policy 1990-93, which came into force on 1-4-1990, could be applied retrospectively to affect the vested rights accrued under the previous policy. The court concluded that "admissible exports" in Para 220(1) of the new policy referred to exports made under the policy in force during the export period. Therefore, the new policy could not be applied retrospectively to deny the additional import licenses for exports made during the period when the old policy was in force.

4. Doctrine of promissory estoppel and vested rights:
The court agreed with the petitioner's contention that a vested right accrued to the 1st respondent based on the eligible exports made during the export period A.M. 90 under the old policy. The court held that the Central Government and the authorities concerned were estopped from denying the additional licenses after the 1st respondent became entitled to them based on the promise held out under the old policy. The court relied on the doctrine of promissory estoppel and cited several judgments to support this view.

5. Allegations of mala fides against the 2nd respondent:
The petitioner alleged that the actions of the 2nd respondent were motivated by political considerations and influenced by an unsuccessful offerer. While the court did not find sufficient direct evidence to establish mala fides, it noted that the 2nd respondent acted high-handedly and without proper application of mind. The court emphasized the need for authorities to act with due deliberation and care in such matters.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned notices and the suspension order, and directed the respondents to extend the validity of the additional license if requested by the petitioner. The court also ordered the petitioner to pay the full consideration amount to the 1st respondent within one month, and the 1st respondent to transfer the additional license to the petitioner immediately. The court awarded costs payable by respondents 2 and 3.