Patni Jewellers vs Union of India

This petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission. It challenges the validity of the impugned order dated 8th February 1988, dispatched on 12th February, 1988 at Exhibit ''C'', by the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay, cancelling the first petitioner M/s. Patni Jewellers'' gold dealers licence. Now, against the impugned order appeal admittedly lies to the Tribunal i.e. CEGAT. If so, there is no good reason why the petitioners, it aggrieved, should not prefer appeal accordingly.

Mr. Diwan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted, however, that the impugned order is ex facie unsustainable and is liable to be set aside and the petitioners need not exhaust remedies under the Statute before approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. He further submitted that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction or power to grant stay of the impugned order. Consequently, even if appeal lies and appeal is filed, the impugned order will continue to operate adversely to the petitioners till the hearing and disposal of the appeal in question.

Now, so far as the first contention aforesaid is concerned, that by itself is no ground for entering this petition. The validity of the impugned order and all such challenges thereto which the petitioners feel impelled to raise against the same can as well be raised in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal will consider and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law. Assuming the Tribunal''s order in appeal going against the petitioners, they would then have their remedies open against the same.

There is, however, substance in the second contention of Mr. Diwan. It does prima facie appear that under the Gold Control Act, the Tribunal may not have power to grant stay of the impugned order cancelling the licence even through it is an appealable order. As the Tribunal does not seem to have that power, I am inclined to stay the impugned order till the disposal of the appeal in question and for a specific period thereafter.

Mr. Diwan sought to challenge the vires and constitutionality of Section 50(1A) of the Gold Control Act. He submitted that this provision was in clear violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, and is, therefore, null and void. He sought leaving to amend the petition by incorporating the said challenge. This challenge, however, would still be open to the petitioners to raise in the event of the petitioners proceeding further against the order of the Tribunal in appeal. That liberty is always there to the petitioners. In the circumstances, I do not propose to go into the said challenge at this stage of the proceedings. The said challenge can be well await determination by the Court if occasion so arises after the disposal of the petitioners'' appeal by the Tribunal.

Hence order :

(a) Pending the hearing end final disposal of the petitioners'' appeal (which the petitioners'' Counsel states will be filed latest by 30th March, 1988) against the impugned order dated 8th February 1988 at Exhibit ''C'', the said order shall stand stayed. The said stay will operate throughout the pendency of the appeal and for a period of sixty days after service of the Tribunals order upon the petitioners.

(b) If the subsisting gold dealer''s licence in favour of the petitioners expires during the pendency of the appeal, the same shall be renewed from time to time by the concerned authority till the hearing and final disposal of the aforesaid appeal by the Tribunal and for a period of sixty days after the disposal thereof. This renewal to be on all usual terms and conditions.

(c) Challenge to the validity and constitutionality of Section 50(1A) of the Gold Control Act is left open.

(d) In the event of the Tribunal''s order in appeal going against and/or adversely affecting the petitioners, they will, of course, be at liberty to proceed against the same in accordance with law.

Order accordingly on this petition which is thus disposed of.