R•zhub•nsh Lal v. Tiu Stat1 of U.P

five peti- J .-This is tions filed by the petitioners Messrs Bhatnagars & Co. Private Ltd. In all these petitions, the pettttoner Shri B. S. Bhatnagar, Managing Director of the above company, this Court mainly in respect of orders which have been passed by the Sea Customs Authorities against a grievance petitioner. This petitioner seems to appropriate writs to obtain Bhatn11gars and Co. Ltd. v. Thi Union ef India Gajmdragadkar J. 704 SUPREME COURT REFORTS [1957] • 1957 Bh•lnagars and Co. Ltd. v. Thi Ur.ion of India Gajendragadkar J. the appropriate fact are not logically that, in the matter of licences which had been issued to him for importing soda ash, he has not received a and, fair treatment from authorities since the impugned orders were passed, he has moving the High Court of Punjab and this Court by several petitions under the Constitution. The present petitions .. show obvious traces of unskilled draftsman ship. They are extremely diffused and in many places incoherent. Statements of chronologii:ally made and there is complete confusion in the narration of the story giving rise to the peti In several places, the petitions refer to tioner's claim. immaterial and, facts which are both often enough, the petitioner is unable to restrain him self from making unjustified and irrelevant suggestions against the authorities. Even in regard to the claim ultimately made by the petitioner, it is not easy to find the petitioner's grievance is and what what exactly particular writ he seeks to obtain from this Court. since the petitions purport to invoke the However, jurisdiction of this Court substantially under Art. 32 of the Constitution, it is necessary to deal with the relevant points in disposing of these petitions. irrelevant and Three of the petitions have been argued by Shri in person. They are Petitions Nos. 423 and Bhatnagar 164 of 1956 and No. 377 of 1955. Petitions Nos. 42 and 46 of 1956 have been argued by Shri Umrigar on behalf of the petitioner. The material facts which it is essential to mention are very few and they lie within a very narrow compass. It appears that the petitioner for the import of soda ash only obtained a licence licensing worth about Rs. 50,00,000 during the period in 1952. relying on to the extent of 100 respectively were received at Bombay ; but meanwhile the Customs though the Authorities had received informantion that, petitioner had obtained a licence in his name for the large amount as import of soda Rs. 50,00,000, his capital did not exceed Rs. 15,000 and that he was in fact licences. On investigation was made and receiving this the same, consignments of soda ash tons, 200 tons and 20 In pursuance of trafficking in these licence, report, a 1957 Bhatnagars and Co. Ltd. v. T tu Union of India Gajendragodkar ]. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 705 charge left in petitioner In regard of the subsequently the matter was cou_rse of Special Police Establishment. During the investigation, certain documents were seized from the petitioner-company's office as well as office of one Messrs N. Jivanlal & Co. at Bombay. The complaint made against the that he was trafficking in licences was confirmed by this investiga that a person carrying on business tion'. It transpired in the name of Messrs. N. Jivanlal & Co., had a free the licences of the petitioner and hand in dealing with that the petitioner used only to receive commission tile imports that he allowed to be made in the name of Messrs Bhatnagars & Co., Ltd. to the two tons of soda ash tons and 20 consignments of 100 inspection of the respectively, it was found on an documents that the same had been imported by Messrs N. Jivanlal & Co .• and since Messrs N. Jivanfal & Co., held no licence, the consignments were seized by the Collector of Customs. The offices of the petitioner and Messrs N. Jivanlal & Co., were raided during the course of this investigation on November 7, 1952 and FebrU1ry 6, 1953, respectively. The goods arrived in Bombay in March and April 1953 and they were confiscated by the Collector of Customs in May and June 1953. licences Subsequently, which had been seized were returned to the petitioner. The confiscation of the goods was challenged by the petitioner by preferring an appeal to the Central Board of Revenue. The said appeal was, however, dismissed. the Central Government The petitioner against Central Government It appears that on March 31, 1956, the Collector of Customs ordered that the goods should be. auctioned. When this order was passed, the petitioner filed one of the petitions before us. He obtained an interim order of vacated. stay but Broadly stated, these are the the present petitions. ultimately facts which give rise then moved order but on September 22, 1955, refused to interfere. said order was the documents including Though five petitions have been presented by petitioner, his grievance confiscation of the substantially is consignments of 8-79 S.C.India/59. against the 1957 Bhatnaf?ars and Co. Ltd. v. Tht Union of India Gajendragadkar J. 706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1957] also not of ultimately made are against the seizure of his licences by the investigating seeks to put the grievance authorities. Each petition of the petitioner in a different form and, though the the same prayers pattern, in the main, the petitioner wants this Court against what he regards as illegal to give him- relief seizure of the goods and against the virtual invali licences for import. The period during dation of his could have been which the licences granted to him operated upon has expired and the petitioner, in one of his petitions, seeks an order from this Court direct ing the Government to revalidate the licences so as to allow the petitioner to import the article m question during the unexpired period of his licences. Though it would have been possible to deal with collectively by delivering a common the matter in each peti these petitions judgment; we would prefer to deal with separately and consider the points raised tion by itself. respondents the other petitions in Petition No. 423 of 1956 in a sense stands apart the present group. The facts which we have already mentioned are enumera ted by petitioner even in this petition but the substantial relief which he seeks to claim and which in his argument is in the petitioner pressed before us India and respect of his allegation that the Union of the petition have contempt of this Court and appropriate action should, therefore, be taken by us against the said respondents. in this way. The petitioner had This contention arises made a similar petition to this Court, No. 571 of 1954, in respect of one of the three consignments in question. This petition had come before this Court for hearing on March 24, 1955. Shri K. R. Chaudhury appeared for the petitioner before this Court. The order passed by this Court would show that the learned Solic1tor India made a statement to the Court indi General of cating that the goods which had been confiscated hy the Customs Authorities would not be sold or otherwise dealt with for a month from the rlate of the communi cation to the petitioner · of the final Central Government may pass in the revisional petition that the • 1957 Bhatnagars and Co. Ltd. v. The Union ~f India Gajendragadkar ]. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 707 time. Indeed petition allowed to costs. that the rcvisional thereafter the It is common Solicitor-General, Solicitor-General. recorded the petition seeks for several months the undertaking was seems to be under the impression behalf them. Acting on this under preferred by him before petitioner a period taking, this Court of one month from the date of the communication to him of the final order which the Central Govern to enable ment might pass on his appeal him to file a petition for Special Leave if he was so advised. Then the order undertaking given by the Subject to this order the petition was dismissed. However, no order was passed as ground revisional peti tion preferred by the petitioner to the Central Govern ment was not disposed of. Ultimately it was dismissed. The petitioner the Central Government, had given an undertaking the peti tioner's revisional petition would be disposed of within a certain specified suggest that revisional petition would be disposed immediately in a day or two, and, since the revisional petition was not disposed the time mentioned by the Solicitor-General, of within the petitioner says respondents are guilty of contempt. It is clear that the petitioner's grievance the prayer for a writ are entirely misconceived. The petitioner is entirely in error in assuming that, on behalf of th<.'. Union of India. any undertaking was that his revisional petition would be disposed of within a dav or two. the Solicitor-General the petitioner's fairlv told ~s that, at earlier application was disposed of, he had expressed the hope that the petitioner's revisional petition would be dealt with by the Central Government at an early date ; but the expression of this hope had nothing to the Solicitor-General do with the undertaking which the Court's order. gave and which was included thinks the Court's The petitioner presumably order required his rcYisional petition should be disposed of by the Central Government within a month. This asmmption unwarranted. of one month which is mentioned in the The period to move order w;~, the period granted to the petitioner the time when entirely that all Indeed, 1957 Bhatnagars and Co. Ltd. v. The Union of India Gajendragadkar ]. 708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1957] it during is no scope In our opinion, this Court for Special Leave after the decision of his revisional petition by the Central Government was communicated to him. In other words, if the decision of the Central Government had gone against the peti tioner, the petitioner was given one month's period within which to move this Court for Special Leave and the Union of India agrec;°d not to deal with the pro perty of the petitioner or dispose of period. the order is plain and unambiguous and any mis If no undertaking was given understanding whatever. as assumed by the petitionet, it is impossible to under stand how any contempt can arise on the ground that the undertaking had not been complied with. Besides, the petitioner has not stopped to consider which person the Union of India represents as Respondent No. 1 in his petition. He has also not paused to consider how respondents could be guilty of contempt. the other We have no hesitation in holding that the prayer for a writ in respect of the alleged contempt made by the petitioner thoroughly unjustified and, we regret to add, wholly irresponsible. This was the only point which the petitioner urged before us in this petition. The result is and it must be dismissed with costs. this petition is the petition to be appears In Petition No. 164 of 1956, so far as we were able to gather, the petitioner's grievance is in respect of a policy statement made by the Government in the Press Note dated February 3, 1955 and Public Notice No. 25-ITC (PN)/56 dated June 30, 1956. The petitioner's contention that the policy enunciated in these two documents this Court to he wants nating this monopoly and to ensure to the petitioner right of carrying on his trade and his fundamental this petition is also entirely business. In our opinion, misconceived and there is no substance in the conten tion raised by the petitioner. It is hardly necessary to emphasize that, in moderrt times, the export and import policy of any democratic State is bound to be flexible. of foreign The needs of the country, industries exchange, amounts to a monopoly issue. appropriate writs to protect nationar the position 1957 Bhatnagars and Co. Ltd. v. The Union of India Gajmdragad/rar :J. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 709 It is stocks regard relevant light of unfettered in regar<l this position considerations and unrestricted it would be relevant to eliminate fluctuations the Press Note, that the through an<l all other examined by the Central Government from time to time and rules in regard to export and import suitably It would, therefore, be idle to suggest that adjusted. there should be freedom of export and import or that the policy of the Govern to export and import should be fixed ment in regard and not changed according to the requirements of the country. that the policy statement in the Press Note has to be considered. The Press Note covers several commodities, but, since we are concerned with Light soda ash in the present to refer briefly to the con case, tents of the Press Note to Light soda ash. commodity, Government have In <lecided, says import should importer-stockists who would be be canalised and effect sale in a required to keep ·buffer manner so as in prices and supplies experienced by consumers the recent past. that, without canalisation The Government consumers were of distribution always to all parts of the distribution of country where obtain. That canalise the distribution of this commodity with the assistance of two 5elling organisations of Messrs. Tata Oil Mills C'..o. Ltd., and Messrs. LC.I. (India) Ltd. These two concerns had agreed to procure soda suppliers the basis of offers which were being invited by means of public notice which was issued on the same <lay as the Press Note. Then the Press Note concludes that soda ash so imported woulJ be stocktl1 at in accord that may be issued ance with by the Government from time to time. The sale price would be fixeJ by the Government on f.o.r. Port basis and the 'paid remunera tion for their services at the landed transaction profit, cost, additional being made over to Government. The Public Notice difficult needed was the Government decided the rate of 12!% of any, on convenient centres anJ sold importer-stockists would it was is why the general directions the mercy of the commodity, selected on commodity importers realized of this 19J7 B!wtnagars and Ca. Ltd. v. ·rnr Union of India r;ajtnr/ragadk.ar J. 710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 19571 issued Imports tu reject favour of time gives In 1953, importers Subject to the terms importer-distributor selected by the same commodities. Tenders were which was issued about relevant particulars in regard import of soda ash and other invited and cl. 4 of the Public Notice shows that the offerer whose offer was accepted by the Chief Controller of Imports would be required to enter into a contract of sale within ten days of the acceptance of the offer with the Government in that behalf. No dou\>t discretion was left to the Chief any offer without Controller of assigning any reason. and condi tions set out .in the Notice, if ,,· contract was concluded, an import licrnce for the the buyer purchased would . be subject to such conditions as might be imposed by the Government of India in that behalf. It appears that, prior to 1953, quantity contracted the se\'tral applicants. during into account and the distributed \Vhen import licences were licences began to be granted freely granted. to established subject to certain conditions. lt also appears that Government decided from time to time the total quantity of commodity which should be imported. Then the extent of the business of the applicant prescribed period was pro rata amount of amongst it was found that even this method did not work sati; factorily, the Government decided to canalise distribution hut while canalisation was tenders invited t!1ey were considered on merits to several It may be that, if the LC.I. and the Tata claimants. Oil Mills Co. Ltd., were licences, their competitors in the line may have found it difficult to fight with these two powerful rivals but is very different from saying that, by the method ' the Government had of canalisation, a monopoly in the import of the commodity in question. It is also important to emphasize that the petitioner is importer. He was granted a not even an established licence during the free period, and so understand his grievance that a monopolv had been this manner, amongst the applicants licences granted import introduced in it is difficult import was introduced specified licrnces licences 1957 Bhat11agars and Co. Ltd. v. The U n;on of India Gajendragadkar]. S.C.R. SUPRE.\1E COURT REPORTS 711 violent regulate intervene fluctuations, created and that he was thereby deprived of his funda mental right to carry on his trade. Government found resorted to malpractices that the importers of soda ash leading to speculation, and It was open to the Govern prices of the commodity. ment, and indeed national interests made it their duty, of the commodity the policy statement Government purported the petitioner. to which objection has been taken by Besides, it is difficult to entertain the argument the present petitioner the alleged monopoly has In substance no affected his right to carry on trade. monopoly has been created and the petitioner's applica tion is entirely misconceived. The result is the petition fails and must be dismissed with costs. in a suitable manner. That is all the distribution to do by passed by this Court calling upon Petition No. 377 of 1955 is directed broadly agaimt orders of confiscation and sale the relevant authorities and the petitioner claims that an appropriate writ should be issued by said authorities to forbear from giving effect to the said the material facts orders. We have already mentioned consignments of in regard to the confiscation of soda ash of 100 tons and 20 tons respectively which the order has given rise to all these proceedings. Now, dated May 3, 1954, has been passed by the Controller of Imports and Exports for Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and it communicates to the petitioner the licence or decision of the Chief Controller that no to him customs licensing against his application period licensing that his applications for period would be dealt with in the normal course accord ing to the policy contained in the Red Book. Then the order adds that it had been decided that re-valida tion of the licences mentioned in Annexure 'A' to the. letter on April 20, 1954, could petitioner's advocate's not be allowed. That is why licences were this latter part of the returned to tl)e petitioner. · It is aggrieved order by which the ag;•',>t which the and upto July 1953. The petitioner was, January-June clearance permit would be granted however, 1954 petitioner seeks petitioner feels the said remedy 1957 Bhatnagars and Co. Ltd. v. The Union of India Gafendragadkar ]. 712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1957 J ·case to operate had present petlt10n. The petitioner's that,. since he was granted licences which were to be alive for one year from FebruJry 13, 1952, the illegal seizure of the the unauthorised confiscation of the con licence and signments in question caused considerable prejudice licences him. The return of the is poor consolation the period during which the the petitioner because already expired. He, licences were therefore, claims that the licences should be revalidated in the sence that the period during which he can operate It is those licence~ should be suitably extended. true that if the relevant authorities were inclined to revalidate the licences in that sense, it would have been open to them to do so. But it is difficult to understand invoke the jurdiction of this how the petitioner can for obtaining Court under Art. 32 of the . Constitution this relief. We do not propose to discuss this matter in our opinion, the position in law elaborately because, is abundantly clear. The authorities have found that, the pet1t10ner in though the licences were obtained by his name, h~ has been trafficking in these licences, that another the consignments individual Messrs. N. the said individual holds no licence for import of soda ash and as such the consignments received If the petitioner's vidual are liable the appropriate grievance that is not a this matter is erroneous, authorities in matter which can be legitimate! y agitated before us It ·may perhaps be, as a petition under Art. 32. that the petitioner learned Solicitor-General that is a may have a remedy by suit for damages but If the goods matter with which we are not concerned. have been seized in accordance with and they have- been seized as a result of the findings recorded by the relevant to hold enquiry under the Sea Customs Act, it is not open to the peti tioner to contend that we should ask the authorities to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner and allow his licences a petitioner's grievance is against the conclusions of fact reached Jivanlal & Co., that lease of life. Essentially that the view taken to be confiscated. authorities. authorities competent suggested, the said relevant ordered further If the I 1957 Bhalriagars nnd C1. Ltd. v. Tht Umo11 of lndi• Gajrndra1adkar ]. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 713 the petitioner would conclusions cannot be challenged beJore us in the present obviously not be writ petition, t'!ititled In the petition fails and must be dismissed the result, with costs. to any relief of the kind claimed by him. authorises and that it legislation which to soda ash to import and export this That leaves two more petitions field by the petitioner, Petitions Nos. 42 of 1956 and 46 of 1956. These petitions have been argued before us by Shri Umrigar and, on raised three he half of the petitioner, Shri U mrigar has points before us. He contends that the Import-Export is every Act does not apply commodity citizen's right If that be the true position, confisca without a licence. tion of the two consignments would be illegal, and so, he wants an appropriate writ from this Court against ·the Central Government. In the alternative, he argues licences amounts to a delegated legislation and as such is invalid. Again, if legislation is invalid on the ground alleged, confiscation of the two consignments would be the petitioner would be entitled to a writ. invalid and Shri Umrigar argues Failing that his that the conclusion of clie11t was trafficking in licences on no legal evidence and must, therefore, Court and appropriate relief given to him on the basis that the petitioner had obtained licences bona fide for his own personal use and taken by the relevant authorities and the subsequent confiscation of the consignments were illegal and 11/tra vires. We these three points in the would now briefly deal with qrder in which Shri Umrigar. they were urged before us is based he reversed the relevant authorities the contrary Yiew two contentions, the issue Imports and Exports The first argument is based upon the fact that, while (Control) Act, enacting The 1947, Act No. XVIII of 1947, the provisions contained in r. 84 (2) of the Defence of India Rules have not been included in the Act and the contention, which at best may be characterised as ingenious, is that the object of omitting the said provisions while enacting the subse the operation quent Act of 1947 was to Import Act, articles which would have fallen of the release, from 1957 Bhatnsgars and Co. Ltd. v. Tht Union of India Gajrndratadkar J. 714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [195iJ under the said omitted provisions. R. 84 of the Defence of India Rules by sub-r. (1) defines export and import. "Import" means bringing into British India by sea. taking out of British land or air. India by sea, land or air. Then sub-s. (2) provides: "Export" means "The Central Government may by a notified order prohibit or restrict the import or export of all goods or or to any goods of any specified description, specified person or class of persons". Sub-r. (3) then provides: 'The Central Government may by notified order make provision for prohibiting, restricting or otherwise controlling, in all cases or in specified classes of cases, and subject to such exceptions, if any, as may be made by or under the order,- (i) the import, export, coastwise or shipment as ships' stores of all goods or goods of any specified description ; carriage (ii) the shipment of fresh water on sea-going vessels ; (iii) the bringing into any port or place in British India of goods of any specified description intended to India without being removed be taken out of British are being from the ship or conveyance in which carried;" import of soda ash Shri U mrigar contends that the could have under the regulated legitimately provisions of r. 84, sub-r. (2) but since this sub-rule has not been enacted under Act XVIII of 1947, all regula tions made by the Central Government and terms and conditions laid down the granting of licences are ultra vires of the Act. Act XVIII of 1947 .the words substantially the operative portion "export" and "import" is the same as of the Act is contained in s. 3 which In r. 84, sub-r. (3), of the Defence of oder to make his argument plausible, Shri Umrigar to put a very narrow, artificial and unreasonable •eeks restriction upon s. 3, sub-s. (1) (a) of Act XVIII of 1947. Before dealing with this argument, however, it would be convenient to set out the said section as under : the same meaning to India Rules. regard to I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 715 "3. Powers prohibit or restrict imports and •957 exports : (1) The Central Government may, by order Bhatna1ars and C1. ;,"'· published in the official Gazette, make provision prohibiting, restricting or otherwise controlling, cases or in specified classes of cases, and subject to such exceptions, 1£ any, as may be made by or under the order,- ,. for Thl Union of India in all Gtefindragadkar ]. (a) the import, export, carnage shipment as ships' stores of goods of description ; coastwise any specified (b) the bringing into any port or place in India of any specified description intended to be removed. from the of goods taken out of India without being ship or conveyance in which they are being carried. (2) All goods to which any order under sub-section ( 1) applies shall be deemed to be goods of which the import •or export has been prohibited or restricted under section 19 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 (VIII of 1878), and all the provisions of that Act shall have effect accordingly, except that section 183 thereof shall have effect as if for the word "shall'' therein the word "may" were substituted. contained (3) Notwithstanding anything aforesaid Act, the Centr:il Government may, by order published in the official Gazette, prohibit, restrict or impose conditions on the clearance, whether for home consumption or for shipment abroad, of any goods -or class of goods imported into India." Shri Umrigar contends that s. 3 (1) (a) cannot apply to the import of soda ash, because, according to him, it is only goods of a specified description which imported or exported, carried coastwise or shipped as ships' stores that fall within the mischief of the said provision. the expression "carriage coastwise" and "shipment as ships' stores" as constituting adjectival clauses governing the words In our opinion, such a construc "import" and "export". tion is wholly unrea~onable. We have no doubt that this provision has to be read disjunctively and distributively, and so read, the import of goods of any specified descrip- In other words, he reads 1957 Bhatnagars and Co. Ltd. v. Tht Union of India Gajtrulragadkar J. 716 • SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1957] the plain that articles inconsistent with tion would attract the application of the said provision. If we bear in· mind the definition of the words "import" and "export'', it would be obvious are carried coastwise would never fall within the cate gory of either import or export. The assumption the Legislature wanted to release all kinds of goods from the application of s. 3 ( 1) (a) is, in our opinion, so and natural completely meaning of the material clause that we have no hesita If the words tion in rejecting Shri Umrigar's argument. used in the clause are given their natural meaning, it is clear that the Legislature must· have felt, in enacting to continue by re that it was unnecessary this Act, enactment the present the provisions of r. 84 (2) in Act. What was specifically provided in the said rule is in effect included in s. 3 (1) (a\. We must, there fore, hold licence was and so all the required for the import of soda ash the appropriate authorities in regard orders passed by in valid to the confiscation of must fail. the argument consignments that no legislation of delegated judicial decisions, however, The next argument is that the material provision is it amounts to delegated legislation. The ultra vires as to the validity of legislative enactments on challenge the· ground often enough presents problems which are not easy of solution. The recent history of that, though there is considerable divergence of opinion in the approach to the question of dealing with such a challenge; some principles may be said to be fairly well settled. There is no doubt that legislation which is conditional, properly so-called, must be distinguished legislation which is delegated. Shri Umrigar concedes that where the Legislature provides and lays the provisions of a parti down principles underlying cular statute the said principles, implementation or enforcement of it is open actual to its chosen delegate. implementation or enforcement The time when the provision should be implemented, be implemented or the period during which it should the place where it should be applied can, according to affords guidance the Legislature and also to leave 1957 Bhatnagars and C1. Ltd. .... The Union of lndi& Gajendratadkar J. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 717 surrendered its from a serious infirmity on him, in appropri:ite cases be validly left by the Legis lature to its delegate.. He, however, contends that, in the impugned Act, the Legislature does not lay down principle and gives no guidance to the delegate while the statutory provisions leaving the implementation of validity of the legislative to him and consequently the enactment suffers ground that the Legislature has lative power in favour of its delegate. In dealing with this narrow ground of challenge, it would be necessary to consider the preamble and the material provisions of the Act to find out whether questions of policy have been clearly decided by the Legislature and whether guidance has been given to the delegate in the matter of implementing the provisions of the statute. Unfor tunately for Shri Umrigar his challenge to the validity of the impugned section under the Imports and Exports Act is completely covered by the decision of this Court in Harishankar Bagla v. The State of Madhya Pradesh(1 ). In this case, ss. 3 and 4 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, were attacked as ultra legislation. This vires on the ground of delegated argument of In repelling the challenge was repelled. delegated legislation, Mahajan Chief Justice who conceded delivered the judgment of the Court "the Legislature must declare the policy of the and the legal principles which are to control any given cases and must provide a standard to guide the officials "The essential judgment proceed~ to add, "consists in the determination or choice of the legislative policy and of formally enacting that policy into a binding rule of conduct". Then the learned that the Legislature Chief Justice referred to the fact that •principle has laid down such a principle and the maintenance or supply of essential increase in commodities and of securing equitable distribution and It was held that the principle availability at fair prices. was clear and to the it offered in exercising its powers under s. 3. Central Government considering the question In other words, (1) [1955] I S.C.R. 380. to execute legislative sufficient guidance function", in power the law". 1957 Bhatttazars and Co. Ltd. v. ·r111 Union of India G ajendra:.adkar J. 718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19571 control impugned whether guidance was afforded to the delegate in bring ing into operation the material provisions of the Act by laying down principles in that behalf, the Court considered the statement of the principles contained in the preamble to the Act as well as the material provisions of s. 3 itself. This decision shows that if we can find a reasonably clear statement of policy under lying the provisions of the Act either in the provisions of the Act or in the preamble, then any part of the Act cannot be attacked on the ground of delegated legislation by suggesting that questions of policy have been left to sections of to the the delegate. Turning that the the present Act, it is necessary to remember present Act purports to continue for a limited period powers to prohibit or imports and exports which had already been enacted by the Defence of India Act and the Rules framed thereunder. In other words, this Act does not purport to enact the material provisions for the first time but it purports to continue that behalf and the previously existing provisions so it would be legitimate to consider the preamble of the predecessor Act and relevant provisions in it to find out whether the Legislature has laid down clearly ·underlying that Act and has enunciated the policy principles for the guidance of ·those to whom authority delegated. The to implement preamble to the present Act says that it was expedient to prohibit, to continue for a limited period powers restrict or otherwise control imports and exports. The preamble to the Defence of India Act refers to the emergency which had arisen when the Act was passed inter alia, to the necessity to take special and refers, and public safety measures interest. Section 2 of the sait\ Act further provides it was essential to secure public order and, what is more relevant and material, essential to the maintenance of supplies and services the life of the community. Thus it broad and main principle underlying the present Act, to maintain supplies essential like its predecessor, was to the life of the community. Thus, if the preamble \:entral Government thought public safety and maintenance is clear that to ensure has been the Act public S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 719 to distinguish this Act from Bagla's case(1). and the relevant section of the earlier Act are read in the light of the preamble of the present Act, it would the Essential he difficult Supplies Act with which this Court was concerned Harishan, zar Incidentally, we may in Pannalal Binjraj v. The U11io11 of also observe India("), where the vires of s. 5 (7-A) of the Income Tax Act were put in ·issue of the challenge was repelled and during the course judgment delivered on December 21, 1956, the previous history of the earlier Income-Tax Acts was taken into account to decide what policy could be said to underlie the provisions of the i.mpugned section. before this Court, 1957 Bhatnagars a11d Co. Ltd. v. The Union of l11dia Gojendragodkar ]. The is easy authority trafficking consignm, ents in his question did not is patently last argument of Shri Umrigar untenable. No doubt Shri Umrigar began this argu ment by contending that the finding made against the licences and petitioner that he was reallv belong to him was based on no evidence but ultimately that there were he could not help conceding the fact appropriate certain circumstances on the petitioner. The conten authorities relied against tion that a finding made by a competent to make but very based on no legal evidence succeed Such a difficult to establish. only when it is shown that evidence support appropriate authorities. 1s impossible no legal evidence against financial resources, his suspK10ns the firm Messrs. attaching prominent part N. Jivanlal & Co. in Bombay and the transaction in played by the reckless regard before allegations which were made by the authorities which were found appropriate authorities, cannot be summarily dismissed as being that there evidence. At this firm at all stag<:'.s of the the consignments as well contention can the view the petitioner to be untrue bv In the present the assumption that there petitioner. His conduct at all material consignments were ordered, is really no the very existence of it may be said the highest constituting to accede irrelevant or as case, 11 [19,-,11 ' s.r:.R. 380. (2) [19571 $.C.R. 231. 1957 Bhatnagars and Co. Ltd. v. TM Union of India CaJtndragadkar ]. 720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1957] are some circumstances on which Shri Umrigar wants fides of his client whereas to rely in favour of the bona there is a large number of circumstances against him. If all the appropriate authorities, on considering these circumstances, the peti tioner, that obviously is not a matter which can be legitimately agitated in the present petition. That is this aspect why we do not propose both Peti of the matter any further. In the tions Nos. 42 of 1956 and 46 of 1956 fail and must be dismissed with costs. to deal with result, concurrently against Petitions dismissed. GIP:'\ 79 s.c. Tndi;i./.'l9" JIJ.fi-G0-1,0flO