RUMA PAL, J. ( 1 ) THE facts of this case are not hi dispute. The facts briefly are as follows: on 14th June 1990 the petitioner applied under the Duty Exemption Scheme for an advance licence for Rs. 6,00,90,6257- for import of 16,750 M/t of Pig iron to office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports at Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the Licensing Authority ). An undertaking was given that the petitioner would export 15,227. 273 M/t of products of the value of at least the value of Rs. 8,52,72,7287 -. On 9th October 1990 the petitioner received an Advance Licence No. P/w73259444/c/xx/18/c/90 dt. 9-10-1990 for Rs. 4,64,48,3% (hereinafter referred to as the said Licence) for import of 12,947. 288 Metric Tonnes of pig iron (hereinafter referred to as the said goods ). Subsequently on 6-12-1990 the licensing Authority enhanced both the quantity and value of the said licence to 16,750 M/t and Rs. 6,00,90,625/- respectively. In the meanwhile on 11th August 1990 the petitioner company entered into a contract with a foreign concern for importation of 12,750 Metric tonnes of pig iron. The petitioner opened letters of credit in favour of the foreign seller. The said goods were shipped. The petitioner paid Rs. 143. 42 lakhs as part payment for the said goods. The petitioner has since paid the entire value of the said goods. On 8th January 1991, the Bills of Entry submitted to Customs were duly processed, scrutinised and passed, by Customs Authorities and the value and quantity of the imported pig iron has been debited by the Customs Authorities upon the said Licence and the Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate Book. On 19th February 1991 the Customs Authorities issued an order for release of the said goods. On 22nd February 1991 the petitioner Company's office received a telex message from the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports New Delhi (Office of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports New Delhi) stating "you are not to operate Advance Licence No. P/w/3259444 dt. 9th October 1990 for Rs. 6,00,90,625/- till further advice". On 27th February 1991 the said goods arrived at the Haldia Port. The Customs Authorities refused to release the said goods. In this background this writ application was moved by the petitioners challenging the said telex and the refusal of the Customs Authorities to release the said goods. 9th October 1990 for Rs. 6,00,90,625/- till further advice". On 27th February 1991 the said goods arrived at the Haldia Port. The Customs Authorities refused to release the said goods. In this background this writ application was moved by the petitioners challenging the said telex and the refusal of the Customs Authorities to release the said goods. An interim order was passed by this Court inter alia, directing warehousing of the goods in the petitioner's godown under the lock and key of the Customs Authority. In view of the extreme hardship claimed by the petitioner by a reasoned order dt. 7th March 1991 this Court passed further orders allowing removal of sufficient quantity of the said goods necessary for manufacture of cast iron products in terms of the said licence conditions for 3 weeks upon notice to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Calcutta. This order was subsequently modified and further orders have been passed by this Court directing release of raw materials sufficient for manufacturing for further periods. The only question which is to be resolved in this matter is whether the respondents were justified in issuing the said telex restraining the petitioner company from operating the licence. It is conceded by both parties that the law applicable to this case is the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said order ). The licence was issued under the Duty Exemption Scheme contained in Chapter XIX of the Import and Export Policy of April 1990 to March 1993. Under the said Scheme import of goods is allowed duty free subject to an undertaking to Export goods manufactured from such duty free import. As and when the duty free goods are imported endorsements are made on the licence and on the Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (DEEC ). The said order is in so far as it is relevant provides as follows:"8. As and when the duty free goods are imported endorsements are made on the licence and on the Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (DEEC ). The said order is in so far as it is relevant provides as follows:"8. Power to debar from importing goods or from receiving licences or allotment of imported goods.- (1) The Central Government or the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports or an authorised officer may debar a licensee or importer or any other person from all or any of the following i. e. importing any goods or receiving licences or allotment of the imported goods through the State Trading Corporation of India, the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India, or any other similar agency and direct, without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him in this behalf, that no licence or allotment of imported goods shall be granted to him and he shall not be permitted to import any goods for a specified period under this Order :- (a) if his application for licence is at any time found to be not in conformity with any provision of this Order; or (b) if such application is found to contain any false, fraudulent or misleading statement; or (c) if he is found to have used in support of his application any document which is false or fabricated or which has been tampered with; or (d) if he has, on any occasion, tampered with an import licence or has imported goods without a licence or has been a party to any corrupt or fraudulent practice in his commercial dealing or in obtaining a licence, or is found to have solicited any licence by offering an inducement to the holder of the licence or otherwise; or (e) if his agent or employee has been a party to any corrupt or fraudulent practice in obtaining any licence on his behalf; or (f) if he fails to comply with or contravenes or attempts to contravene or abets the contravention of any conditions embodied in, or accompanying a licence or an application for a licence; or (g) if he commits a breach of any law (including any rule, order or regulation) relating to customs or the import and export of goods or foreign exchange; or (h) if he fails to produce any documents or information that is called for by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports or any other licensing authority; or (i) if he fails to submit production returns regularly to the D. G. T. D. or any other sponsoring authority concerned; or (j) if he fails to comply with the distribution control in respect of imported goods where such control is applicable. 8a. Power to suspend importation of goods of grant of licences or allotments of imported goods.- The Central Government or the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports or an authorised officer may suspend the importation of goods by any person or grant of licences or allotment of imported goods through the State Trading Corporation of India, the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India, or any other similar agency, to a licensee or importer or any other person pending investigation into one or more of the allegations mentioned in Clause 8 without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him in this behalf: provided that grant of a licence or allotment of imported goods, shall not ordinarily be suspended under the clause for a period exceeding twelve months: provided further that on the withdrawal of such suspension, a licence or allotment of imported goods may be granted to him for a period of suspension, subject to such conditions, restrictions or limitations as may be decided by the authority aforesaid, keeping in view the foreign exchange position, indigenous production and other relevant factors. 8b Power to keep in abeyance applications for licences or allotments of imported goods.- Where any investigation into any of the allegations mentioned in Clause 8 is pending against licensee or importer or any other person, and the Central Government or the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports or an authorised officer is satisfied that without ascertaining further details in regard to such allegation, the grant of licence or allotment of imported goods will not be in the public interest, then notwithstanding anything contained in this Order, the Central Government or the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports or an authorised officer may keep in abeyance any application for grant of licence from such person, or direct the State Trading Corporation of India, the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India, or any other similar agency to keep in abeyance allotment of imported goods to such person, without assigning any reason and without prejudice to any other action that may be taken in this behalf: provided that the period for which the grant of such licence or allotment is kept in abeyance under this clause shall not ordinarily exceed six months. 9. 9. Cancellation of licences.- (1) The Central Government or the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports or any other officer authorised in this behalf may cancel any licence granted under this Order or otherwise render it ineffective : (a) if the licence has been granted through inadvertence or mistake or has been obtained by fraud or mis-representation; (b) if the licence has been granted contrary to rules or the provisions of this Order; (c) if the licensee has committed a breach of any of the conditions of a licence; (d) if the Central Government or such officer is satisfied that the licence will not serve the purpose for which it has been granted; (e) If the licensee has committed a breach of any law relating to customs or the rules and regulations relating to the imports or exports of goods or of any law relating to the regulations of foreign exchange. 9 (3 ). The Central Government or the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports or any other officer authorised in this behalf may, by special order in writing render ineffective or suspend the operation of any licence granted under this Order, where proceedings of cancellation of such licence have been initiated under sub-clause (1) so however, every such special order, shall be revoked where a decision is taken to cancel the licence after the completion of such proceedings. 10. Opportunity of being heard to be given.- (1) No action shall be taken under Clause 7 or sub-clause (1) or sub-clause (3) of Clause 8 or Clause 8a or Clause (1) or Clause 9 against a licence or an importer or any other person unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. " the respondent's. Counsel has contended that specific charges had been made in the affidavit of the respondents 4 to 6 and the petitioner had not chosen to answer the charges in its affidavit in reply. It is further contended that the telex was issued at a pre-investigation stage in exercise of a power ancillary to the powers of suspension/abeyance/cancellation under Clause 8 and 9 of the said order. The respondents have placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the following cases : (i) Income Tax Officer, Cannanore v. Mohammed Kunhi reported in AIR 1969 SC 430 . (ii) Liberty Oil Mills and Ors. v. Union of India. The respondents have placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the following cases : (i) Income Tax Officer, Cannanore v. Mohammed Kunhi reported in AIR 1969 SC 430 . (ii) Liberty Oil Mills and Ors. v. Union of India. ( 2 ) IN Income Tax Officer, Cannanore v. Mohammed Kunhi reported in AIR 1969 SC 430 , the Supreme Court was dealing with the question whether the appellate authority under the Income Tax Act, 1961 had the power to stay recovery proceedings pending the Appeal although there was no such power expressly granted by the statute. The Supreme Court held that there was such power. It is to be noted however that the Supreme Court was considering the exercise of power pending an appeal. The court was not called upon to consider whether the appellate authority had the ancillary powers to issue an order for stay even though there was no 'lis' pending before it. ( 3 ) THE following sentence in the Liberty Oil Mills case has also been relied on by the respondents. "ordinarily in the absence of anything more, it should not be necessary to give an opportunity to the person concerned before proceeding to take action under Clause 8a or Clause 8b". This sentence has been read out of context. The full passage which has been quoted below would show that the reasoning in Liberty Oil Mills runs counter to the submission of the respondents. ( 4 ) IN fact in the Liberty Oil Mills case (supra) the Supreme Court has stressed the importance of natural justice and has stated"we do not think that it is permissible to interpret any statutory instrument so as to exclude natural justice unless the language of the instrument leaves no option to the Court. Procedural fairness embodying natural justice is to be implied whenever action is taken affecting the rights of parties". ( 5 ) THE Customs Authorities (being the respondents 1 and 3 herein) in their affidavit have stated that the only reason for their taking steps to prevent the clearance of the said goods was"in view of the said telex dated 22nd February 1991 from the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. ( 5 ) THE Customs Authorities (being the respondents 1 and 3 herein) in their affidavit have stated that the only reason for their taking steps to prevent the clearance of the said goods was"in view of the said telex dated 22nd February 1991 from the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. " ( 6 ) THE respondents 4 to 6 being the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports ECA Division, New Delhi and the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports at Calcutta have stated the reasons for the said order in their affidavit. The reasons are:" (i) All the licences obtained were of high value running into crores of Rupees and therefore with a view to checking whether the raw materials imported duty free under these licences were in fact being utilised in the manufacture of relevant export product for which the licences were obtained or otherwise diverting the same to others and fulfilling the export obligation from indigenously procured raw materials, investigations were started in this case. "" (ii) The preliminary made so far have revealed that though they had fulfilled the export obligation against six advance licences but at the same time it has been observed that they have sold CI Castings rejects in large quantities viz. 12094 MTs during the period 1987-88 to 1989-90 as compared to the normal wastage allowed to the extent of 10% only. Since the sale of CI castings rejects during the year 1986-87 was 'nil', therefore, sudden increase in sale of CI castings rejects in large quantities in the subsequent years put the firm's activities in the sphere of doubt. "" (iii) Further the last licence No. P/w/3259444 dt. 9th October 1990 was applied for and obtained for import of raw materials worth Rs. 6 crores whereas taking into view their past export performance they were entitled for grant of advance licence only for a CIF Value of Rs. 4. 64 crores. Hence, it was imperative on part of the ITC Organisation to check consumption of raw materials imported duty free in the past and accordingly started investigations. It was also necessary to check whether the licence has been obtained by the firm correctly and on the basis of genuine documents. 4. 64 crores. Hence, it was imperative on part of the ITC Organisation to check consumption of raw materials imported duty free in the past and accordingly started investigations. It was also necessary to check whether the licence has been obtained by the firm correctly and on the basis of genuine documents. "finally it is stated in paragraph 4 of the said affidavit:"if such investigation shows and/or reveals that the writ petitioner has violated the provisions of Imports (Control) Order, 1955 then the said present licence may be liable to cancellation and/or render ineffective or may result in suspending the licence and/or importation of the goods. " ( 7 ) AS far as the first ground is concerned it is not stated that there was any reason to believe that the materials imported duty free were not being utilised for the manufacture of the relevant export product. Merely because licences of high value were granted could not be itself raise any doubt of any illegal activity. ( 8 ) THE second ground in fact is somewhat contradictory to the first as it is admitted that the export commitments had been fulfilled. Whatever the explanation for the alleged larger scale of rejects is concerned this related to the period 1987-88 and 1989-90, that is much prior to the grant of the Advance licence in this case. ( 9 ) THE third ground is equally if more tendous. Several questions are left unanswered such as why was a licence granted for Rs. 6 Crores by the respondents themselves for more than the petitioner was entitled? Having granted such licence why was it suddenly necessary to check the genuineness of the documents several months after the licence had been issued? ( 10 ) HOWEVER it is the fourth paragraph of the said affidavit which reveals the very tentative nature of the enquiry being conducted. There is not even a claim to a prima facie suspicion let alone a satisfaction that the petitioner company has violated any provision of Imports (Control) Order, 1955. It is on this very nebulous base that the respondents justify their harsh action against the petitioner. ( 11 ) APART from this, the stand taken by the respondents at the hearing is confusing - The respondents were agreeable to the interim order continuing. It is on this very nebulous base that the respondents justify their harsh action against the petitioner. ( 11 ) APART from this, the stand taken by the respondents at the hearing is confusing - The respondents were agreeable to the interim order continuing. The interim order has permitted the removal and utilisation of goods subject to certain conditions at the time of removal. If the respondents were serious about suspending import such an interim order should have been considered directly contrary to their intentions. ( 12 ) THE respondents were unable to disclose the source of the power for issuing the telex. Assuming the power exercised was an ancillary power no commitment was made by the respondent as to the substantive clause of the said Order to which the power was claimed to be an ancillary. ( 13 ) HOWEVER, it is clear that the clause is not SB. SB applies only to "allotments yet to be made and licences yet to be issued". ( 14 ) THEREFORE the action of interim suspension at a pre-investigation stage could have been taken if at all in connection with Clauses 8a or 9 (3) of the Order. The question is whether such an order could be passed without giving the person affected an opportunity of being heard. In my view it cannot for the following reasons:1. The powers under 8a and 9 (3) are exercised as interim measures. The preconditions before the exercise of power under 8a are (i) A proceeding must be pending under Clause 8. (ii) A reasonable opportunity to be heard must be given to the person concerned (Clause 10a ). Similarly the power to issue an interim order under Clause 9 (3) is only when an enquiry under 9 (1) is pending. No enquiry under 9 (1) can even be commenced unless the person concerned is given an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the rules of natural justice have to be fulfilled at the threshold before the power under 9 (3) comes into play. 2. The statute itself provides for a hearing before such an interim order made under either clause is passed. Therefore, the rules of natural justice have to be fulfilled at the threshold before the power under 9 (3) comes into play. 2. The statute itself provides for a hearing before such an interim order made under either clause is passed. The reason for providing for an opportunity of being heard before an order under 8a is passed has been stated in the Liberty Oil Mills case (supra) :"on the initiation of a proceeding under Clause 8 by the commencement of investigation, the authority has to address itself to the question whether any action of an interim nature to prevent further harm or mischief is warranted pending investigation. Licences may have already been issued and allotment of imported goods may have already been made. The authority may consider it desirable to prevent the person from importing goods pursuant to the licences or to prevent him from obtaining the imported goods allotted to him through the specified agencies. If so, the authority may make an order under Clause 8-A suspending the importation of goods, the grant of licences or the allotment of imported goods. But Clause 10 provides that no action under Clause 8-A may be taken without giving a reasonable opportunity to the person concerned. It is obviously thought that the right such as it may be, to obtain a licence or allotment of goods having become crystallised into a licence or an allotment, an order under Clause 8-A may have immediate and grave prejudicial repercussions on the person concerned making it desirable that he should be heard before an order of suspension is made. So it is that Clause 8-A contemplates a pre-decisional hearing. As we have seen, both Clauses 8-A and 8-B contemplate action of an interim nature pending investigation into allegations under Clause 8. Ordinarily, in the absence of anything more, it would not be necessary to give an opportunity to the person concerned before proceeding to take action under Clause 8-A or Clause 8-B. But while Clause 8-B deals with the right to obtain licences and the right to obtain allotments, Clause 8-A deals with rights which have flowered into licences and allotments. Ordinarily, in the absence of anything more, it would not be necessary to give an opportunity to the person concerned before proceeding to take action under Clause 8-A or Clause 8-B. But while Clause 8-B deals with the right to obtain licences and the right to obtain allotments, Clause 8-A deals with rights which have flowered into licences and allotments. A person to whom licences have been granted or allotments made may have arranged his affairs on that basis and entered into transactions with others, and, to him the consequences of action under Clause 8-A may be truly disastrous whereas the consequences of action under Clause 8-B may not be so imminently harmful. It is presumably because of this lively difference between Clauses 8-A and 8-B that Clause 10 provides for a pre-decisional opportunity in the case of action under Clause 8-A and does not so provide in the case of action under Clause 8-B. "the same considerations are applicable to Clause 9. In this case no proceeding is pending either under Clauses 8 or 9. Uptil today no show cause notice either under Clause 8 read with Clause 10a or Clause 9 (1) read with Clause 10a has been served on the petitioner. If the main power is subjected to the restriction of natural justice it cannot be argued that an ancillary power is not so subject. It is well established that an interim order is in aid of the main reliefs: This presupposes a proceeding for the so called 'main relief. The power to issue an ad-interim order cannot be exercised in vacuo. As the Supreme Court has held in the Liberty Oil Mills case (supra ). "since action under Clause 8-B is to be taken pending investigation into allegations under Clause 8 we must taken it that the action under Clause 8-B is really in aid of the ultimate order under Clause 8. It must follow that in order to invite the satisfaction contemplated by Clause 8-B there must be present some strong suspicion of one or other or more of the grounds mentioned in Clause 8. "there can be no doubt that the Authorities can hold a preliminary enquiry prior to the investigations either under Clause 8 or Clause 9 before any satisfaction is arrived at under the said two clauses. "there can be no doubt that the Authorities can hold a preliminary enquiry prior to the investigations either under Clause 8 or Clause 9 before any satisfaction is arrived at under the said two clauses. Even after such satisfaction has been arrived at Parliament has thought it fit to provide for the observance of the principles of natural justice before the power to suspend/cancel/hold a licence in abeyance is exercised. It cannot be contended that without even reaching the stage of such satisfaction the authority concerned could exercise such power dis-regarding the principles of natural justice all together. ( 15 ) THE action of the Respondents Nos. 4 to 6 therefore in issuing the telex is not only ultra vires the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, but also in violation of the principles of Natural Justice. ( 16 ) THERE is therefore also no question of Appeal under the Import Control Order or the Imports (Control) Act, 1947 as the order cannot be held to have been issued under the Act or Order. ( 17 ) FOR all the aforesaid reasons I hold that the writ application must be allowed. The impugned telex is set aside. The respondents are directed to forthwith release and allow clearance of the said goods covered by the said Advance Licence. It is made clear that this order does not restrain the respondent licensing authority from taking action in the event an investigation is subsequently commenced under the said Order against the petitioner. The petitioner will be paid the cost of this application by the respondents 4 to 6. Prayer for stay is made on behalf of the respondents and the same is refused.