NDLI: Dava Son of Bhimji Gohil Vs. Joint Chief Controller of Imports & Exports

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Export Control
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India Imports and Exports (control) Act, 1947 (18 of 1947)
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Petition Disposed Off
Headnote	Export Control—Manganese Ore—Notifications canalising export and preventing new entrants from exporting—Constitutionality of —State Trading Corporation—Monopoly of export created in favour of —If infringes fundamental right to carry on trade—Notification dated May 26, 1958—Exports Control Order, 1958—Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (18 of 1947), s. 3—Constitution of India, Arts. 19 (1) (g) and 19 (6).There was little internal demand for manganese ore and it was extracted mainly for exporting out of India. Though previously there was no restriction on the grant of export licences from 1956, the Central Government started controlling and restricting the export of manganese ore. On May 26, 1958, the Central Government issued a notification which contained the policy statement for the period July 1958 to June 1959 under which export quotas were to be granted only to established shippers and mine owners who had exported from 1953 onwards and to the State Trading Corporation. Mine owners, like the appellant who did not have any export performance in the earlier years were excluded from the scheme, They could sell their ore only to the established shippers are to the Corporation which they could do only at unremunerative prices. By subsequent policy statements the export was canalised entirely through the Corporation. Section 3 of the Imports and ex- ports (Control) Act, 1947 empowered the Central Government to'make orders restricting or controlling the imports and ex- ports of goods. The Central Government made the Exports Control Order, 1958, cl. 6(h) of which empowered the Central Government and the licensing authority to refuse to grant a licence ‘‘if the licensing authority decides to canalise exports through special or specialised agencies or channels”. The Notification of May 26, 1950, was issued under cl. 6(h). The appellants contended: (1) that the withholding of the right to engage in the export trade from a class of mine owners constituted an unreasonable restriction on their fundamental right guaranteed under Art, 19(1)(g), (II) that cl. 6 (h) of the order was ultra vires the Central Government as s. 3 of the Act permitted it to place restrictions only on goods and not on the persons who might participate in the export, and (iii) that the notification by which canalisation of exports was affected was ‘outside the contempiation of” agency and channel under cl. 6 (h).Held (per Sinha, C.J., Ayyangar, Mudholkar and Aiyar, JJ.) that the restrictions and control imposed on the export of manganese ore by the Central Government were legal and did not offend Art. 19(1) (g).The restriction or control in the form of channelling or canalising the trade was not outside the limitations which might be imposed on export trading by s.3 of the Act and consequently cl. 6 (h) of the Order permitting canalisation of exports was within the rule making power of the Central Government. The power to impose restrictions was not confined to goods but extended to persons also. The canalising of the exports through the established shippers and mine owners was unobjectionable; canalising through the State Trading Corporation and the progressive increase through the corporation was a reasonable restriction in the interests of ‘the general public. The object of these restrictions and control was to enable a regular supply of uniform quality of the ore to the foreign buyers so as to ensure the optimum earning of foreign exchange by the country, and this could best be attained with the Corporation as the main agency engaged in the trade. The State Trading Corporation was a “special” agency or channel as contemplated by cl. (h) and the canalising could be done through it. A special agency is one which is more likely to achieve the object than other agencies or to achieve it in a larger measure than others. Canalising necessarily implied the exclusion of some groups,“ and if the canalising was valid the appellant could not complain that he had been excluded from the export trade. Per Subba Rao, J.-The Notification and policy statements which destroyed the trade of mine owners like the appellant did not impose reasonable restrictions on their fundamental rights and violated Art. 19 (1) (g). The creation of ,a monopoly or near monopoly or the export of manganese ore in favour of the State Trading Corporation could only be achieved by a law made in conformity with Art. 19 (6) (ii) and not by administrative action like issuing of notifications and policy statement. The power conferred on the authorities under cl. 6 (h) of the Order to canalise exports through special or specialised agencies or channels was well within the power conferred on the Central Government by s. 3 of the Act. Further, the State Trading Corporation was a "special" agency within the meaning of cl. 6(h).But the canalising had to be done in such manner that all persons engaged in the trade could participate in the export of the ore and no one was completely excluded.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar
Neutral Citation	1962 INSC 145
Petitioner	Dava Son Of Bhimji Gohil
Respondent	Joint Chief Controller Of Imports & Exports
SCR	[1963] 2 S.C.R. 73
Judgement Date	1962-04-16
Case Number	226

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Dava Son of Bhimji Gohil Vs. Joint Chief Controller of Imports & Exports

Please Log-in to view this content

Dy. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports Vs. Roshanlal Agarwal and Ors.

Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras Vs. M/s. Aminchand Mutha Etc.

Dy. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports, New Delhi Vs. K. T. Kosalram & Ors.

J. Fernandes & Co. Vs. The Deputy Chief Controller of Imports & Exports and Ors.

Pioneer Traders and Others Vs. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports Pondicherry

Durga Prashad Vs. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports & Ors.

Sinha Govindji Vs. The Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and Others

Andhra Industrial Works, A. P. Vs. Chief Controller of Imports and Ors.

M/s. Universal Imports Agency and Another Vs. The Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and Others

Dava Son of Bhimji Gohil Vs. Joint Chief Controller of Imports & Exports

Dava Son of Bhimji Gohil Vs. Joint Chief Controller of Imports & Exports

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Dy. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports Vs. Roshanlal Agarwal and Ors.

Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras Vs. M/s. Aminchand Mutha Etc.

Dy. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports, New Delhi Vs. K. T. Kosalram & Ors.

J. Fernandes & Co. Vs. The Deputy Chief Controller of Imports & Exports and Ors.

Pioneer Traders and Others Vs. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports Pondicherry

Durga Prashad Vs. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports & Ors.

Sinha Govindji Vs. The Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and Others

Andhra Industrial Works, A. P. Vs. Chief Controller of Imports and Ors.

M/s. Universal Imports Agency and Another Vs. The Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and Others

Dava Son of Bhimji Gohil Vs. Joint Chief Controller of Imports & Exports