9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (5) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the fact that large stakes were in issue. The observance of the rules of natural justice is not referable to the fatness of the stake but is essentially related to the demands of a given situation. The position here is covered by statutory provisions and it is well settled that rules of natural justice do not supplant but supplement the law. Appeal dismissed. - Civil Appeal No. 2705, and 5383 of 1985 - - - Dated:- 5-5-1988 - R.S. Pathak, and Ranganath Misra, JJ. L.M. Singhvi, Senior Advocate (Kailash Vasdev, G.L. Rawal, Ms. Neerja, Sandeep Narain, R. Narasimhan, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and C. Mukhopadhya Advocates, with him), for the appellants. T.S.K.M. Iyer, Senior Advocate (R.P. Srivastava and C.V.S. Rao, Advocates, with him), for the respondents. [Judgment per: Ranganath Misra, J.]. - These appeals by certificate are directed against the common judgment of a full Bench of the Delhi High Court dated December 20,1984, in two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellants are respectively a Company and its Managing Director. The Company was the holder of letter of authority in respect of three licences for import of coconut oil in one case a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es respectively as redemption fines. On 27-12-1982 two writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Delhi challenging the action of the Collector. The said writ petitions were finally placed before a Bench of three Judges of the High Court; two of them being Sachar and Khanna, JJ., came to hold that the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed while the other Judge being Wad, J. took the view that the action of the Collector was totally untenable and that the writ petition should be allowed and the order of the Collector should be set aside. The majority of the learned Judges were of the further view that the quantum of redemption fine should be considered by the Appellate Tribunal. Sachar, J. with whom Khanna, J. concurred, directed :- "I would in the circumstances remit the matter to the Appellate Tribunal but only on the question of consideration of the question of quantum of redemption fine. The Appellate Tribunal could hear and dispose of this matter as if it was hearing an appeal filed by the petitioners but, only on the question of quantum of redemption fine." In the absence of any challenge, this part of the order of the High Court has become final and has to operat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of items appearing in Appendix 26 of the Import Policy of 1982-83 during the extended period of validity." 3. The High Court has come to the correct conclusion that the terms of the Import Policy of 1980-81 would apply to the facts of these cases. 4. The basic question is whether at the relevant time, import of coconut oil had become canalised through the State Trading Corporation ("STC" for short). Rule 3 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 made under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 provides :- "3(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Order, no person shall import in case of the descriptions specified in S.C.hedule I expect under and in accordance with the licence or a custom's clearance permitting grant by the Central Government or by any officer specified in S.C.hedule II". Para 5 of Appendix 9 ran thus :- "In the case of the various items mentioned therein, import will be made only by the State Trading Corporation of India on the basis of foreign exchange released by the Government in its favour. The items mentioned therein are :-" 5. It is thus clear that if "coconut oil" of the industrial variety was covered by paragraph 5 of Appendix 9, then it woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f their statutory functioning and if on actual interpretation it turns out that "coconut oil" covered what the appellants have imported, the fact situation cannot take a different turn on account of the letter of the S.T.C. At the most, it may have some relevance when the quantum of redemption fine is considered by the Tribunal in terms of the direction of the High Court. 9. Massive arguments were built up by learned counsel for the appellants on the basis that the decision of the Central Board and the Central Government rendered in similar matters were binding on the Collector and he could not have acted to the contrary. Several precedents have been cited during the hearing. In a tier system, undoubtedly decisions of higher authorities are binding on lower authoiities and quasi-judicial Tribunals are also bound by this discipline. 10. In Broome v. Cassell and Co.- (1972) 1 AER 801, the Lord Chancellor delivering the opinion of the House observed : "I hope it will never be necessary to say so again that in the hierarchical system of courts which exists in this country, it is necessary for each lower tier, including the Court of Appeal, to accept loyally the decisions of the h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
