Judgment :- K. VEERASWAMI, C.J. : These two appeals arise from a common order of Palaniswamy. J. who declined to quash an order of the third respondent. The appellant, claimed to be an established importer within the meaning of the Red Policy Book and applied in the prescribed form in July, 1976 for refixation of quota for watches and parts thereof under the Import Trade Control. He had got a quota certificate issued on 27th September, 1967 for Rs. 1, 500/-. This limit was raised to Rs. 2, 000/- on his representation. The certificate issued to him related to the period from 1st April, 1967 to March, 1968. He cleared a certain parcel through a bank and moved the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports to issue a quota certificate for Rs. 2, 002.22. But that request was rejected and in further proceedings up to the hierarchy he was unsuccessful. They had also declined to alter the period of the quota. 2. Declining to quash the said proceedings and orders, Palaniswamy, J., referred to the related paragraphs in the Import Trade Control Policy Book and eventually thought that no ground was shown to issue the rule. Since the learned Judge disposed of the matter, the Supreme Court in A. I. Works vs. Chief Controller, Imports 1974 AIR(SC) 1539, after pointing out that the import trade policy was not a statutory document, ruled : "..........On the basis of an Import Trade Policy and applicant has no absolute right, much less a fundamental right, to the grant of an import licence." * Reference was made by Sarkaria, J. who spoke for the Court, to Dy. Asstt. Iron & Steel Controller vs. L. Manickchand, Proprietor, Katrella Metal Corporation, Madras, 1972 AIR(SC) 235 : 1972 (2) SCR 1 (SC). In that case also it was pointed out that in view of S. 3(1)(a) of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947, and cl. 6(1) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 an applicant has no vested right to an import licence in terms of the policy in force at the time of the application. On that view, mandamus, which was asked for, was refused. A. I. Works vs. Chief Controller, Imports 1974 AIR(SC) 1539 was concerned with the delay on the part of the authority, which it found was not undue or motivated by bad faith. On that view, mandamus, which was asked for, was refused. A. I. Works vs. Chief Controller, Imports 1974 AIR(SC) 1539 was concerned with the delay on the part of the authority, which it found was not undue or motivated by bad faith. Dealing with a contention that the then existing instructions imposed unreasonable restrictions on the right of the petitioners to carry on trade or business, the Court said that restrictions obviously had been imposed in the interest of the general public and national economy, and while making that observation, the following extract from Dy. Asstt. Iron & Steel Controller vs. L. Manickchand, Proprietor, Katrella Metal Corporation, Madras, 1972 AIR(SC) 235 : 1972 (2) SCR 1 (SC) was referred to : "............it has to be borne in mind that in the present stage of our industrial development imports requiring foreign exchange have necessarily to be appropriately controlled and regulated. Possible abuses of import quota have also to be effectively checked and this inevitably requires proper scrutiny of the various applications for import licence. In granting licences for imports, the authority concerned has to keep in view various factors which may have impact on imports of other items of relatively greater priority in the larger interest of the overall economy of the country which has to be the supreme consideration." * If follows, therefore, that the import policy published from time to time by the concerned Ministry in the Policy Red book is but a guidance and contains principles or rules which have no statutory force whatever and do not clothe any applicant for quota with a right to get it. That will suffice to dispose of these appeals, which are dismissed. No costs. CDJLawJournal Print view CDJ 1975 MHC 141 Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras Case No : Writ Appeal Nos. 107 & 108 of 1974 Judges: THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K VEERASWAMI,THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V RAMASWAMY Parties : Sha Poosafi Mangilal Versus Government of India and Others Appearing Advocates : P. V. Subramanayan, R. Thiagarajan, Advocates. Date of Judgment : 20-03-1975 Head Note :- COMPARATIVE CITATIONS: 1976 (5) CTR 117 Judgment :- K. VEERASWAMI, C.J. : These two appeals arise from a common order of Palaniswamy. J. who declined to quash an order of the third respondent. Date of Judgment : 20-03-1975 Head Note :- COMPARATIVE CITATIONS: 1976 (5) CTR 117 Judgment :- K. VEERASWAMI, C.J. : These two appeals arise from a common order of Palaniswamy. J. who declined to quash an order of the third respondent. The appellant, claimed to be an established importer within the meaning of the Red Policy Book and applied in the prescribed form in July, 1976 for refixation of quota for watches and parts thereof under the Import Trade Control. He had got a quota certificate issued on 27th September, 1967 for Rs. 1, 500/-. This limit was raised to Rs. 2, 000/- on his representation. The certificate issued to him related to the period from 1st April, 1967 to March, 1968. He cleared a certain parcel through a bank and moved the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports to issue a quota certificate for Rs. 2, 002.22. But that request was rejected and in further proceedings up to the hierarchy he was unsuccessful. They had also declined to alter the period of the quota. 2. Declining to quash the said proceedings and orders, Palaniswamy, J., referred to the related paragraphs in the Import Trade Control Policy Book and eventually thought that no ground was shown to issue the rule. Since the learned Judge disposed of the matter, the Supreme Court in A. I. Works vs. Chief Controller, Imports 1974 AIR(SC) 1539, after pointing out that the import trade policy was not a statutory document, ruled : "..........On the basis of an Import Trade Policy and applicant has no absolute right, much less a fundamental right, to the grant of an import licence." * Reference was made by Sarkaria, J. who spoke for the Court, to Dy. Asstt. Iron & Steel Controller vs. L. Manickchand, Proprietor, Katrella Metal Corporation, Madras, 1972 AIR(SC) 235 : 1972 (2) SCR 1 (SC). In that case also it was pointed out that in view of S. 3(1)(a) of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947, and cl. 6(1) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 an applicant has no vested right to an import licence in terms of the policy in force at the time of the application. On that view, mandamus, which was asked for, was refused. 6(1) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 an applicant has no vested right to an import licence in terms of the policy in force at the time of the application. On that view, mandamus, which was asked for, was refused. A. I. Works vs. Chief Controller, Imports 1974 AIR(SC) 1539 was concerned with the delay on the part of the authority, which it found was not undue or motivated by bad faith. Dealing with a contention that the then existing instructions imposed unreasonable restrictions on the right of the petitioners to carry on trade or business, the Court said that restrictions obviously had been imposed in the interest of the general public and national economy, and while making that observation, the following extract from Dy. Asstt. Iron & Steel Controller vs. L. Manickchand, Proprietor, Katrella Metal Corporation, Madras, 1972 AIR(SC) 235 : 1972 (2) SCR 1 (SC) was referred to : "............it has to be borne in mind that in the present stage of our industrial development imports requiring foreign exchange have necessarily to be appropriately controlled and regulated. Possible abuses of import quota have also to be effectively checked and this inevitably requires proper scrutiny of the various applications for import licence. In granting licences for imports, the authority concerned has to keep in view various factors which may have impact on imports of other items of relatively greater priority in the larger interest of the overall economy of the country which has to be the supreme consideration." * If follows, therefore, that the import policy published from time to time by the concerned Ministry in the Policy Red book is but a guidance and contains principles or rules which have no statutory force whatever and do not clothe any applicant for quota with a right to get it. That will suffice to dispose of these appeals, which are dismissed. No costs.