Holding

The Court declined to interfere and dismissed the writ petition, holding that the inordinate delay and lack of merit preclude any finding of discrimination under Article 14.

Summary

Rup Diamonds, a recognised export house, was granted six imprest licences for importing uncut diamonds and fulfilled the associated export obligations. After several years, it applied in 1986 for revalidation and endorsement of these licences under paragraph 185(4) of the 1982-83 Import‑Export Policy, but the Joint Chief Controller rejected the request citing an inordinate delay and lack of merit. The petitioners argued that similar applications by other exporters had been granted after High Court judgments, alleging discrimination and a violation of Article 14. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners had re‑agitated a stale claim, that the delay in both seeking revalidation and filing the writ was excessive, and that the earlier cases were distinguishable because the applications were made promptly. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in seeking revalidation and endorsement of imprest licences bars judicial intervention.
Whether the rejection of the petitioners' application, in view of similar approvals granted to other exporters, violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the Supreme Court's dismissal of Special Leave Petitions in the earlier cases constitutes endorsement of the authorities' decisions.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226, s. Article 32

Subjects

Article 14Import‑Export PolicyImprest licenceRevalidationDelayWrit petitionConstitutional lawDiscrimination

Judgment

RUP DIAMONDS & ORS.
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JANUARY 2, 1989
!
~. IR.S. PATHAK, CJ AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, J.] B

Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 32 and 226-lmports and
Exports Controller-Declining to revalidate and endorse six Imprest
licences-Unexplained and inordinate delay in filing writ petition-
Court-Whether can decline to interfere.

Petitioners, a recognised Export House for purposes of the c
Import-Export Policy, 1982-83 were granted six imprest licences for the
import of uncut and unset diamonds with the obligation to fulfil certain
export commitment for the export of India, of cut and polished
diamonds. They did not seek the revalidation and endorsement for
OGL items within the time prescribed under Paragraph 185(4) of the D
Import-Export Policy 1982-83 (AM 1983). Only in the year 1986, after a
lapse of several years from the completion of their export-obligations,
they sought such revalidation and endorsement. The Joint Chief
Controller of Imports and Exports, by two orders dated 5.8.1986 and
9.4.1986, declined the request, on grounds of inordinate delay in seek-
ing revalidation and endorsement, and on merits and permissibility of E
the claim. ·

In the Writ Petition, the petitioners challenged these orders
contending that in view of the grant of revalidation of imprest licences
of two other Export Houses, consequent upon their writ petitions being
' allowed by the High Court and the Special Leave Petitions of the F
Government against the decision being dismissed by the Supreme
Court, rejection by the authorities of the petitioners' claim for similar
revalidation, and endorsement of their imprest licences, was discrimi-
natory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as the
grounds for refusal put forward by the authorities in those cases were
exactly similar to those preferred in the case of the petitioners, and G
\~- those grounds had been found to be insufficient in law to support the
' refusal, and that there was no basis for any distinction to be made in the
case of petitioners who had made their demand for revalidation after
the High Court's decision in one of those cases.

Dismissing the Writ Petition, H
13
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

A HELD: Petitioners are re-agitating claims which they had not
pursued for several years. They were not vigilant hut were content to he
dormant and.close to sit on the fence till somebody else's case came to be
decided. Their case cannot be considered on the anology of one, where a
law had been declared unconstitutional and void by a Court, so as to
B enable persons to recover monies paid under the compulsion of a law
later so declared void. There is also an unexplained, inordinate delay in
preferring this writ petition which is brought after almost a year after
the first rejection. [18B-C]
' .
Apart altogether from the merits of the other grounds for rejec- +----
tion, the inordinate delay in preferring the claim before the authorities
C as also the delay in filing the writ petition before this Court does not
pursuade this Court to interfere in this matter. [18E)

The rejection to this Writ Petition shaU not prejudice petitioners'
case in the appeal, if such a right of appeal is available under the appeal
D procedures in the policy. [19A]

Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller, I & E, 1969(2) SCR 861, refer-
red to.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 411of1987.
E
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

T. U. Mehta, A. Subba Rao, P. Parmeshwaran, Harish N. Salve,
N.D. Garg, Rajiv K. Garg, P.H. Parekh, Ms. Ayesha Misra and M.N.
Shroff for the appearing parties. ~_
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

VENKATACHALIAH, J. By this petition under Art. 32 of the
Constitution, Messrs. Rup Diamonds, a Registered Export House,
assail the validity of the decisions dated 9.4.1986 and 5.8.1986 of the
G Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports declining to re-validate
and endorse six Imprest Licences for import of Open General Licence
items upon the fulfillment by the petitioners of their export obligations -Jr.
under the Imprest-Licences. Petitioners seek issue of appropriate writs
to the Authorities to re-validate the six Imprest Licences, with
appropriate endorsement for the import of open General items under
H the Import Export Policy of 1982-83 (A.M. 1~83).
RUP DIAMONDS v. U.0.1. [VENKATACHALIAH, J.J 15

This writ petition came up for preliminary hearing along with A
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 2579 of 1987 and 2580 of 1987
preferred by the Union of India seeking leave to appeal from two
Judgments of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay in two other cases.

B
Petitioners are a recognised Export-House for purposes of the
Import-Export Policy, 1982-83. They applied for, and were granted,
six imprest licences: (1) 2932347 dated 31.7.1982 for CIF value of
Rs.65,28,500; (2) 293259 dated 20.8.1982 for Rs.1,14,49,263; (3)
0470538 dated 11.5.1982 for Rs.1,43,76,770; (4) 0449604 dated
12.5.1981 for Rs.1,32,39,130; (5) 0468397 dated 16.4.1982 for
Rs.5,21,747; and (6) 2927607 dated 29.4.1980 for Rs.1,47,16,238, for c
'
the import of uncut and unset diamonds with the obligation to fulfill
c· certain export commitment for the export, out of India, of cut and
polished diamonds of the FOB value, stipulated in each of the
imprest-licences. Petitioners claim that, pursuant to the said imprest
licences, they had imported uncut and unset diamonds and had also
D
discharged their export obligations by exporting cut and polished
diamonds of the requisite value as evidenced by the Redemption-
Certificates which are annexed as annexure V to the memorandum of
writ petition.

3. Petitioners claim that in terms of para 185(4) of Import- E
Export Policy, 1982-83, they were entitled to the facility for the import
of OGL items as is available in the case of replenishment licences
issued to export houses under clauses (1) and (3) of para 185 of A-M
1983 policy. Paragraph 185(4) of the AM 1983 provided:
~-·
(4) The facility for import of OGL items available in sub- F
para (3) above, may also be allowed, on merits, to Export
Houses against their advance/imprest licences on account
of which they are rendered ineligible to obtain REP
licence. In such cases, however, the value upto which the
OGL import may be allowed, will not exceed the value to
which the Export House would have been eligible to the G
REP licence, had he not obtained advance/imprest licence
in question. This facility will be available to the Export
House after he has discharged the export obligation
imposed on the advance/imprest licence. Therefore, if by
the tlljte, the Export House becomes eligible to this facility,
the advance/imprest licence has expired, or, if the original H
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19891 1 S.C.R.

validity left unused by that time is less than six months, the
A
licensing authority will revalidate the licence simul-
taneously so as to give to the licence-holder a time of six
months for the purpose of importing OGL item under this
facility.

B
However, the petitioners did not bestir themselves to seek the
revalidation and endorsement for OGL items for quite some time
thereafter. It was only in the year 1986 they sought such revalidation
and endorsement. That was after a lapse of several years from the
completion of their export-obligations. The Joint Chief Controller of
Imports and Exports by his two decisions, one dated 5.8.1986 pertain-
c ing to the Imprest Licence 2927607 dated 29.4.1980 and the other
dated 9.4.1986, pertaining to the other five Imprest-Licences
declined the request. These two orders are challenged in the writ
petition.

D The grounds for refusal in both the decisions are similar, except
for the reference to certain relevant dates. The grounds are, broadly,
on two aspects. The first pertains to the inordinate delay in seeking
revalidation and endorsement. On this the communication says: j
"We are surprised to have received your letter No. nil
E
dated 21.4.1986 forwarding therewith Imprest Licence No.
2927607 dated 29.4.1980 (exchange control copy) for the
period AM 83 for grant of revalidation and endorsement
for import of OGL items without debiting the licence in
terms of para 1985 of Import Policy for the period 1982-83
after 5 years of the expiry of the licence for which the
F export obligation period was discharged on 25.10.80,
22/25.10.80, 29.10.80, 19.5.81, 5.5.81, 22.6.81, 5.5.81,
20.5.81, 29.6.81, & 22.9.81. In other words, you have made
a request for revalidation and endorsement under para 185
of AM 83 Policy after 4 years and 7 months from the dis-
charge of the export obligation. It is, therefore, obvious
G that you have not cared to apply immediately after dis-
charge of export obligation and as such your request is .J,.
grossly time-barred ...... "

The second aspect is as to the merits and permissibility of the claim.
H The communication says:

'
RUP DIAMONDS v. U.0.1. (VENKATACHALJAH, J.l 17

" ...... More-over, in terms of para 185(7) to AM 83 A
Import Policy, Import of OGL items by Export houses
under the provisions to sub-paras (4) and (5) of para 185 of
the said policy is subject to the condition that the shipments
of goods shall take place within the validity of the OGL i.e.
31.3.86 or within the validity period of the Import Licence
1· itself (within grace period) whichever date is earlier. Since B
this date is over and the request has been made after 4
years and 7 months after the disc.barge of export obligation,
question of permitting facility under the aforesaid provi-
sion does not arise. Besides, there is no provision in the
Import-Export procedures for the period 1985-86 for grant
of revalidation, in which period your request has been C
received. Para 73 of the said procedures states that no
revalidation of import licences of emergency licences for
CCPs will be allowed ....... "

The present writ petition challenge these orders. The petitioners
allege that their claims are similar to those made by M/s. Ripa! Kumar D
<S< Co., and Mis. H. Patel & Co. who had filed writ petitions No. 2477
of 1984 and No. 1465 of 1984 respectively in the High Court of Judica-
ture at Bombay for the issue of appropriate writs to the authorities to
revalidate the Imprest-Licences; that those writ petitions were allowed
by the learned Single Judges of the High Court, whose decisions came
to be affirmed in appeal by the Division Bench; that Special Leave E
Petitions 4670 of 1986 and 7389 of 1985, respectively, preferred by the
Union of India, against the said two judgments of the Bombay High
Court were dismissed by this Court and that, therefore, the rejection
by the authorities, of the petitioners' claim for similar revalidation of
-f
I• the six Imprest-Licences and endorsement for OGL items would, in
view of grant of revalidation and endorsement in those cases, be dis- F
criminatory and violative of Article 14. It is contended for the peti-
tioners that the grounds for refusal put-forward by the authorities in
the case of Mis. Ripa! Kumar & Co., and M/s. H. Patel & Co., were
exactly similar to those proffered in the case of petitioners also and
that those grounds had been found by the courts to be insufficient in
law to support the refusal. Petitioners say that they made the demand G
for revalidation immediately after the decision of the Bombay High
Court in Mis. Ripa/ Kumar & Co. 's case and that the rejection of the
petitioners' claim is wholly discriminatory, as there was no basis for
any distinction to be made in petitioners' case.

Apart altogether from the merits of the grounds for rejection- H
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11989) 1 S.C.R.

A on which it cannot be said that the mere rejection of the Special Leave
Petitions in the cases of Mis. Ripa! Kumar & Co., and Mis. H. Patel &
Co., could by itself, be construed as the imprimatur of this Court on
the correctness of the decisions sought to be appealed against-there is
one more ground which basically sets the present case apart. Petition-
ers are re-agitating claims which they had not pursued for several
B years. Petitioners were not vigilent but were content to be dormant
and chose to sit on the fence till somebody else's case came to be
decided. There case cannot be considered on the anology of one where
a law had been declared unconstitutional and void by a Court, so as to
enable persons to recover monies paid under the compulsion of a law
later so declared void. There is also an unexplained, inordinate delayin
preferring this writ petition which is brought after almost an year after
c the first rejection. From the orders in Mis. Ripa/ Kumar & Co.'s case
and Mis H. Patel & Co. 's case it is seen that in the former case the
application for revalidation and endorsement was made on 12 .3 .1984
within four months of the date of the redemption certificate dated
16 .11.1983 and in the latter case the application for revalidation was
D filed on 20.6.1984 in about three months from the Redemption Certifi-
cate dated 9.3.1984.

6. On a consideration of the matter we think that, apart
altogether from the merits of the other grounds f~r rejection, the
J
inordinate delay in preferring the claim befor the authorities as also
E
the delay in filing the writ petition before this . Court should, by
themselves, p~rsuade us to decline to interfere.

In DurgaPrasad v. Chief Controller, I & E, 11969) 2 SCR 861 this
Court observed: t
\
F
" ..... It is well known that the exchange position of
this country and the policy of the Government regarding
International Trade varies from year to year and it would
be rather odd for this Court to direct that an import licence
be granted in the year 1968 in respect of alleged defaults
G committed by the Government in 1959 or 1962. In these
matters it is essential that persons who are aggrieved by
orders of the Government should approach the High Court
after exhausting the remedies provided by law, rule or
order with utmost expedition."

H It is stated in the two communications rejecting the claim of the
RUP DIAMONDS v. U.0.1. [VENKATACHALIAH, J.J 19

petitioners that petitioners are entitled to an appeal as laid down in the A
appeal-procedures in the policy. If any such a right of appeal is avail-
able, this order rejecting the writ petition shall not prejudice peti-
tioners' case in any such appeal.

8. We, accordingly, decline to interfere and reject this writ
B
petition.

N.P.V. Petition dismissed .

•