9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (5) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or, Desk Officer in the Department of Industrial Development informed the respondents that pending disposal of their application for licence they may carry on business with their small scale registration of manufacture of slitting/confectioning of photo sensitised material and that the Ministry had no objection to the Customs Department clearing the consignment of the jumbo rolls as per prescribed rules. 2. On 7-12-1988 the petitioners issued the C.O.B. licence to the respondents in respect of photographic colour paper only. Before issuance of the regular C.O.B. licence the petitioner filed the writ petition, bearing No. 2021 of 1988, out of which the present LPA s arise. In the original writ petition the petitioner has inter alia complained that M/s. Hindustan Photo Films Ltd., a Government of India Undertaking was given favourable treatment in the matters of duty concession while the same was being refused to the petitioner. They complained of violation of Article 14. It was prayed that all record(s) regarding the exemption notification dated 7-7-1988 along with papers regarding M/s. Hindustan Photo Films Ltd. should be produced. They also prayed that the respondent should issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the circumstances, we request the High Court to dispose of the interim application filed by the Union of India as also the appeal as early as possible, preferably within two weeks from today. Pending disposal of the appeal, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as on this day. So far as the order of the High Court rejecting the application of the appellant, Hindustan Photo Films Ltd. for being added a party-respondent in the writ petition is concerned, we do not find any reason to interfere with the said order. However, if in the course of the proceedings, the High Court considers that the appellant should be made a party-respondent, it will be open to the High Court to add the appellant as a party in the writ petition. The Union of India will be entitled to rely upon any affidavit that has been filed or may be filed by the appellants either in the writ petition or in the appeal pending before the Division Bench, as part of its own affidavit in support of its case. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent, Northen Plastic Ltd., undertakes to withdraw the allegations made against the appellant, Hindustan Photo Films Ltd., in paragraph 50 and ground No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of goods as the photographic material [involving very huge amount(s)] is highly sensitive and prone to early decay. 7. As against these submissions, counsel for the appellant has submitted that on the basis of wrong interpretation of the letter dated 8-4-1987 issued by the Desk Officer, respondent Northern Plastics Ltd. has tried to import large quantities of photographic material and have illegally tried to secure customs duty concessions. He has further submitted that it was for the LPA Court to decide as to whether Hindustan Photo Films should be joined as a party-respondent. Of course, according to the counsel, whenever an appeal Bench passes such an order the party is joined as a party in the writ petition itself. In other words, the Supreme Court direction is for reconsideration of the earlier decision of the bench of this Court in regard to impleading of Hindustan Photo Films Ltd. in the writ petition. According to the counsel, since the respondent Northern Plastics Ltd. has based its claim on the said letter of 8-4-1987 and sought urgent orders for the release of goods, all orders passed by the learned single Judge interpreting the said letter are to be considered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicial impact on the foreign exchange and economy. Huge quantities of imported photographic films of various description are being brought in the internal market which are being sold at a premium. We have also considered the earnest prayer of the counsel for the respondent Northern Plastic Ltd. that the matter brooks no delay. If the impugned orders are allowed to sustain the respondent-company and the importers similarly situated would create a major upheaval in the internal market by their imports made under the alleged permission by letter dated 8-4-1987. Once the goods are cleared and find their way into the market the situation could not be retrieved even if the petitioners ultimately fail in the petitions. Therefore, it is necessary that the writ court should finally dispose of the, writ petition early after hearing the parties, including the Hindustan Photo Films Ltd. This will also answer the present plea of the writ petitioner to dispose of the matter early. 11. We may, however, indicate as to how the learned Judges were misled in their interpretation of the letter dated 8-4-1987 and unwittingly erroneous orders were passed. 12. The petitioners s submission in the writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lear these goods." It may be noted that this order was passed on 8-12-1988 in CM. 5180/88 after the C.O.B. licence was issued to the writ petitioner on 7-12-1988. There is no mention of the letter dated 9-8-1988 in this order. 13. The next order of the learned single Judge dated 9-2-1989 has been passed in CM. 252/89. In this application the petitioner had stated that it had already imported graphic art films and X-ray films and that the letters of credit were opened on 18-6-1988 and 20-10-1988, i.e., before 7-12-1988 when the C.O.B. licence was granted to the writ petitioner. The learned Judge relied on the letter dated 8-4-1987 for clearance of the graphic art films and medical X-ray films at concessional rate of customs duty. The learned Judge interpreted the granting of the C.O.B. licence on 7-12-1988 in respect of one item to mean that in respect of three other items the application for licence was still pending. The letter dated 9-8-1988 does not find any mention or consideration in this order also. 14. The respondents had only produced the letter dated 8-4-1987, which was in reply to their letter dated 4-4-1987. They have not filed a copy of the said letter of 4-4-1987 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sensitised paper, but also at concessional rates of duty. It appears that Kirpal, J. was misled by the said submission of the respondents. 15. The respondents state that the letters of credit were opened by them prior to the granting of the C.O.B. licence on 7-12-1988, but it is also correct that the letters of credit for graphic art films and medical X-Ray films were opened after 9-8-1988 when the concessional import was restricted only to the photographic colour paper. We must add that if the respondents had failed to bring to the notice of the Court all the relevant facts, it was the duty of the counsel for Union of India to do so. 16. One reason for not having the proper facts before the two learned Judges was that Hindustan Photo Films Ltd. was not allowed to be impleaded at the earlier stage when they had made an application. As a corporation specially created for this purpose, it had a better day-to-day information regarding the manufacture and trade of photo sensitised material and its import. They also knew the companies and concerns engaged in this activity and their manufacturing and financial background. If Hindustan Photo Films Ltd. were impleaded as a party, they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
