Karnataka High Court
Silver Cloud Estates Private Limited vs The Additioanl Director General Of ... on 27 November, 2012
Author: N Kumar
Bench: N Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.V.PINTO
WRIT APPEAL NO.1031/2008
AND
WRIT APPEAL NOS.15332-15336/2011 (GM-FE)
BETWEEN:
SILVER CLOUD ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED
10TH K.M.HUNSUR ROAD
BELAVADI, MYSORE 570 048
(REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR.E..J.COELHO)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI D.L.JAGADEESH, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
FOREIGN TRADE
(APPELLATE AUTHORITY)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
UDYOG BHAVAN
NEW DELHI 110 011.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
2
FOREIGN TRADE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
UDYOG BHAVAN
NEW DELHI 110 011.
3. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
UDYOG BHAVAN
NEW DELHI 110 011
(REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI Y.HARIPRASAD, CGC)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
NO.7960/2006 DATED 30.05.2008.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FURTHER
ORDERS THIS DAY, N KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge who has declined to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioner on the ground the action of the respondents is not violative of Article 14 of the 3 Constitution as contended by the petitioner- appellant. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the writ petition.
2. The petitioner submitted an application for import of raw materials viz., black pepper as per standard output and input norms as per SION-E6 under Product Group during the year 2002-2003. He obtained six advance licences in terms of the provisions contained in Handbook of Procedures 2002-2007. In terms of the licence he imported 5.67 kgs. of black pepper as against export of 1 kg. of pepper oil. After availing the said benefit and utilizing the licences, he filed an application for conversion of his advance licences issued under SION-E6 to self-declaration scheme. The reason given was he could not extract the 4 stipulated export quantity from the quantity of raw materials allowed under SION-E6. The said request of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that there is no provision for conversion of advance licences issued under SION-E6 to self- declaration scheme. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by these orders he preferred a writ petition. He contended that the persons who are similarly placed as that of the petitioner viz., M/s.Synthite Industrial Chemicals Ltd., and Kancor Flavours and Extracts Limited, were given the similar benefit. Therefore he complained of discrimination. The respondents contended that the aforesaid two licencees obtained licence under self-declaratory scheme and not under SION-E6. Therefore they are not similarly placed. Accepting the said contention, the learned Single Judge 5 dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the case of discrimination is not made out. In the absence of a provision for conversion when authorities declined to accede to the said request they committed no illegality in passing the impugned orders. Therefore he dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeals are filed.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order contended that on the day he applied for licence, SION-E6 was the only scheme which was available. There is no difference between SION-E6 and self-declaration scheme. It is a policy of the Government and the policy cannot be discriminatory in nature. If there is inconsistency in these two schemes the Court has the power to interpret these schemes, harmonize them and extend the benefit to the 6 licencees. All these aspects have not been considered by the learned Single Judge and he committed serious error in dismissing the writ petition.
4. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Department submitted that SION-E6 scheme is totally different from self-declaration scheme. The terms and conditions which regulate these two schemes altogether are different. There is no provision for conversion of one scheme into another scheme after obtaining the licences and utilizing the licences. There is no discrimination as contended and therefore he submits the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition.
5. From the aforesaid material, it is clear the petitioner applied for six licences under SION-E6 7 and he was granted the licence. He completely utilized the licences, imported black pepper and he has also exported pepper oil and thus there is a shortfall. It is at that stage he has sought for conversion of SION-E6 into the self-declaration scheme. As there is no provision for such conversion, the authorities declined to grant such a relief which is legal and valid and cannot be found fault with. The case of discrimination pleaded also is without any substance. The two units which are pointed out by the petitioner applied for licences under self-declaration scheme, whereas the petitioner has applied under SION-E6. They are not similarly placed. The applicants under SION-E6 constitute a class by themselves and export and import of pepper under the scheme is governed by the Rules and regulations stipulated under the scheme. 8 Similarly, self-declaration scheme is governed by Rules and conditions applicable to the same. In those circumstances, the petitioner cannot seek benefit of the self-declaration scheme. There is no discrimination. Therefore the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition. The question of interpretation, harmonious interpretation and a beneficial interpretation would arise, if the Court is called upon to interpret the provision in a statute or in a scheme. When two schemes are operating simultaneously, the Court under the guise of beneficial interpretation of this provision cannot confer benefit of one scheme on the person who has availed the benefit under another scheme. Therefore, we do not see any merit in the said contention also. Seen from any angle, we do not 9 see any justification to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Therefore, the appeals are devoid of merit and accordingly they are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE JT/-