VNION OF INDIA AND 0THERS ' 't. v. OSWAL WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. AND. OTHERS

The Order of the Court was delivered by D . CHINNAPPA REDDY J: We. grant .special leave and· procee<l · to dispose of the -appeal. ' · M/S. Oswal Woollen Mills Limited having its registered office at Ludhiana in the State of Punjab and a branch office-at Calcutta, and Narayan Das Jain, Secretary of the Company have filed a wtit. /a petition in the Calcutta High Court seeking· variom; reliefs against . 1.. _ the Union of India (through the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi), the Chief Controller ·of Imports and-Exports, New Delhi, the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Amritsar, , ·'the Collector of Customs, Calcutta and the. State Trading Corpora- . J! tion of India, New Delhi. The ·primary prayer in the writ petition-" is to prevent or to quash an apprebend.ed or purported action under· clause 8-B of the Import Control 'Order. All the other reliefs sought in. the writ petition revolve round the principal_ relief regarding clause- 8-B.of the Import Control Order. The other prayers are either- ancillary or inc.idental to the principal prayer or are of an inter-' G locutory charar.tor. Having regard to the fact that the registere<i office of the company is at Ludhiana and the principal respondents. against whom the primary relief is sought are· at New Delhi, one would liave expected the writ petition to be filed either in. the Higlh Court of Punjab and Haryana or in the Delhi High Court. The writ ,';- II petitioners however have chosen the Galcutta Hiih Court as· the- forum perhaps because one of the interlocutory reliefs which is sought is i:n respect of a consignment of beef tallow which has aqived at the ·

• UNION v.. OSWAL WOOLLEN MILLS (Chinnapa Reddy, J.) 345

Calcutta Port. An inevitable result <;>f the filing of writ petitions A -elsewhere than at the place where the concerned offices and the relevant records are located is to delay pro111pt return and contest. We do not desire to probe further into the question whether the writ_ . petition was filed by design or accident in the Calcutta High Court when the ot)ice ~f the company is in the State of Punjab and all the B principal respondents are in, Delhi. But we do feel d.isturbed that sue!) writ petitions are often deJibetately filed in .distant High Courts, as part of a manoeuvre"in a legal battle, . so as to render it difficult for the officials at Delhi to move applications to vacate stay where it becomes necessary to file such applications. More about . this later. · C

It appears· that an order under clause 8.-B of the Import Control Or.der·had been made against the company on Nove~ber 9, 1983, but the writ petition was filed a~·if the order was in the offing and might be· made at any time, The writ petition was apparently filed in professed or real ignorance of the order made under clause 8-B of D the Import Conirol Order. · ..

a On November 22, 1983, learned single judge of the Calcutta' High Court issued a rule Nisi and granted an interim order in the following terms:. E "There will be ·an interim order of stay/injunction in terms of prayers {j), (.kl, (I) and (ii) of the writ petition till the disposal of the rule. Liberty is given to the respondents to app1y for vacation or va~iation". • F The rule was made returnable on January 31, 1984. Pl-ayers • - . (j), (k), (!) and (n) of the petition were !iJr .the grant of:-

"(j)-Injuction restraining the respondents their ser- vants and/or agents from· filing any criminal' complaint G against the petitioners or any of its director or employees from initiating any departmental proceedings under the Import and Export (Control) Act, 19-17 and Import (Control) Order, 1955 against the petitioners or.any of its Directors or Employees till the-disposal of the Rule; · II ... (k)__:Injuction restraining the respondents from issuing an order of abeyance under clause 8· B oHhe lmport Control

• 346 . SUP!l.EME C0URT REPORTS [1984] 3 s.c.R.

A Order, 1955 and/or from taking any·action under such o"rder of abeyance till the disposal of the rule ; · • (!)--Mandatory ordet directing tbe respondent ,No.5 Coflector of Customs to permit the petitioners t_o .re-export the consignment of inedible Beef Tai low in terms of I.T.G; 8' Public Notice No.37 of 19.83 dated l.9.83 with respect to the consignment weighing 456.316 MT which is.lying at Calcutta under section A9 of the Customs Act; ·

. (n)-An order that pending the hearing and final dis- · C posal of this writ petifion the pefitioners be perm1ited to re- ·Ship and/or re-export the consignment of 456.216 MT of inedible Beef Tallow which arrived at Calcutta as more part\cular:y. menticihcd in Annexure T."

() It is obvious that· the. interim order is of a drastic character ·with a great potential for mischief. The principal prayer _in the writ peiition is the <:hallenge to the .. order !'lade or propo.sed to be made under clause 8-B of the Import Control Order. The interim order. in terms of prayers (j) and (k) has the effect (If practically allowing the writ petition at the stage of admis,ion without hearing the oppo- E' ,siie parties. While we do not wish to .say that a drastic inte-rim order may_never be passed without hearing the opposite parties even_ if the circumstances ju;tify it, we arc very firmly of the opinion that a statutory .. order sc:ch as the one made ~ ·. iri \he present case unde'r - clause 8-B of the Import Control Order ought not to have been siayed • .

· without at least hearing tl10se that made the order. Such a stay m;;y F lead tq devastating consequences leaving ·no way of undoing tl\e ·mischief. Where a plentitude of power is given under.a statute, designed to meet a dire situation, it is nq answer to say that the very nature of the po,ver and the con~equences \\'hich may ensue is itself a sufficierit justification for. the grant of a stay of that order, unless, of course, there are stlfficient circun1stances to justify a strong prhna 0 • G facie inference that the otaer was made in abuse of the power conferred by _tbe statute. A statutory order such as the one under clause 8--B purports. to be niade in the public interest and uni em there are even stronger gro.unds of public interest an exp-arte interim order will not be justified. The only appropriate order to make. in such· . . Ho cases is to issue notice.to the respondents and make. it returnable within a· short period. This should partii;ularly. be so. where the -offices of the principal respondents and ·relevant records lie outside • -·

' UNIO'.'l v. OSWAL WOOLLEN.MILLS (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 347

1he ordinary .jurisdiction bf ihe court. To grant interim relief <11traight away and leave it to the respondents to move the court to vacate the interim order may jeopardise the public interest. It is A. notorious how if an interim order is once made by a court, partieg . i:mploy every device and tactic to ward off the final hearing· of th~ application. It is, therefore, necessary for the courts to be circum- ·spect in the matter of granting interim relief, more particularly so. where _the .interim relief isodicected against orders or actions.of public B -Officials acting in discharge of their public dut)* and in exercise of ·statu,tcrry powers. On the facts. and circumstances of the present case, we are satisfied that no interim rnlief should have been granted by the High Court in the terms in w.t.ich it wa,s <lone.

c Orders. under .clause 8-B of the Import Control Order, similar ·to the.one made against Oswal Woollen Mills Limited, were made against various import-export houses and others. Some of. these -0rders have been questioned by the.affected pa1ties in diff~rent High .. Courts and, in some cases, interim orders have also· been obtained. ·One such writ petition filed by Liberty Oil Mills Pvt. Limited has been. transferred to this court from the Bombay High Court at the instance of the Union of India. The case is novr pending in this -court and has in fact been heard_· in part by this vary Bench. Apparently, under the impression that 1ho questions at issue will be E finally· determined by this court in the c.isc of the Liberty Oil Mills, the Union of lrtdia aml the other autho1 i~tes do not seem to h_~ve moved expeditiously to contest the writ petiticllls filed in the H''<l!'h Courts and to have the interim orders vacated. In the present ca~e. an application to v~cate the interim order was filed in the Caicutta Bigh Com£.on February I, 1984. Jn the mean_;,hile; Oswal Woojien F Mills Limited went on writing letters _and sending telegrams compla'. . ining ·that the interim orders of the High Court had not been opeyed ,and threatening action for contempt of Court. On January 6, 1984, · :ar:i application to commit the Chief Controller of Imp9rts and Exports and others for contempt of court was filed by the company. G · Notice to the r'espondents was ·ordered on the same day and on February 3, 1984, overruling .the request made on behalf of the respondents that the petition to vacate the interiin order may be · hear<) first, the High Court issued a rule in the applic~tion for cont- .empt of court againsnhc Ch.ief Controller of Imports & Exports H :and the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and ·~irected them to appear in person on March 6, ]984. Thereupon the Union oflndia, the Chief Controller of Imports & Exports, etc.

348 SUPRIME COURT REPORTS . [1984} 3 S.C.R... : ' .

A ·have filed tli.e present special leave petition against the interim ordei-c dated November 22, 191!3. of the Calcutta High Court i~ Civil Ruli:c. No.10933Wof1983 and the rule for contempt .of court issued on Februrary .3, 1984 inCivil Rnle No. 571 W ofl984. f..We have beard: Shri Milon Banerjee, ·learned Additional Solicitor General for the·. B petitioners and Shri ·Soli Sorai:Jlee, learned senior· Advocate for the respondents. . . - · We have already mentioned. that the High Court \~as not right · in granting interim relief in the terms in which it had done so. We~ therefore, vacate the interim order dated November 22, 1983 mad~ c by the Calcutta J:ligh Court. It has been pointed oui to us that .th« Chie(Cqntroller oflmports &.Exports has himself issued a Public: •• . N:otice dated 1st September, 1983 permitting re-shipment/re-export of import consignment which qould not be cleared consequent upon the Ministry of Commerce Import Trade Control Order No 27/81· D dated the 24th· August, 1983. The. Public .Notice empowers th" customs authority to allow re·shipment/re·exp6rt having _regard tO-- the extent to which foreign exchange spent ·on import will be earned . back and subject to snch other conditions relating .t.hereto as 'the Customs authority may.impose.· We wish to· make.it clear thaUht:o· vacating of the interim order.willriot disentitle the writ petitioner!>- 0

E . from seeking and taking advantage of the public notice dateci Sepiember 1, 1983. • • , '..,

In regard to the rule for contempt ofcou;t, we find it difficult to sustain thesame. Though ordinarily we would hove.· left the. . F · matter to be decided by.the High ' Court, -we think . it unnecessary to· do so in the present case having regard to the elaborate argument~ addressed to us by bJth parties. The complaint of .the wdt. pe.ti- · tioners in seeking the ·rule for contempt of ·court was that the· authorities had not dealt with. their applications for licences, etc~ . - despite the .'abeyance' order having been stayed. It is obvious that G of the stay ofthe operation the 'abeyance' order merely in~ant that the writ petitioners wereentitled to havetheir applications disposed of by the concerned authorities. · The Higi1 Court not having set any- limit of time for the disposal of the applications, it wasnot for the . · writ petitioners to impSse ·a time'.limit and d~mmd that their applica-· --f tions should be disposed of forthwith. If the writ petitioners ·were H ..... aggrieved by the failure of° their authorities to·. dispose of their applications expeditiously, it was open to· them to seek a ·further· direction . . from the ·court. to fixing a limit of tim: ·within. which. the:

UNION v. OSWAL WOOI,Ll:N MILLS (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 349:

applications were to- be disposed of. We fail to see how the Chief A. Controller of Imports & Exports or the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports & Exports could be said to have committed any contempt of court, even priifl.a facie, by their mere failure to take action. in the matter. of the disposal of the applications of the writ petitions. In the circumstances, we perceive the. application to commit the authorities for contempt of court to be a device to exact licences R from them. · I

We accodingly allow the appeal, vacate the interim order dated November 22, 1983 of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Rule No. · 10933 Wof 1983 and quash the rule for contempt bf court issued on February 3, 1984 in Civil Rule No. 571 W of 1984. C

• Before we part with the 'case ,we may refer to a statement made by Shri J.P., Sharma, Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Ex· ,ports, New Delhi in·th.e affiidavit filed by him before us to the effect that 'in the larger public interest Government was un~ b le to obey the interim order and had taken the question to this Hon'ble C.ourt wl]ich is pending decision shortly'. Torn out of the context in which • it was made, the unhappy language in which it has been expressed is suggestive of contumaciousness on the part· of J.P. Sharma. However; he.has_ filed further affidavits before us ewlain,ing the context in which the statement was made and expre5Sing his unqualified regret. We accept his explanation an<! expression. of regret. We are satisfied that Shri J.P. Sharma .did not mean what· the language employed by him suggested. However, we. do wish to express our disapproval of the language emplQyed which is certainly · suggestive of contumaciousness. • '· F

N.V.K. Appeal allowed.