STAR DIAMOND CO. INDIAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                                                                                 A
                       STAR DIAMOND CO. INDIA
                                   v.
                        UNION OF ·INDIA $l. ORS.

                            SEPTEMBER 12, 1986                                   B

         [R.S PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJ!, JJ.]

         Import Policy 1985-88: Holders of Additional Licences for 1978-
    79--Whether entitled to import both 'canalised' and 'non-canalised'
    items~Effect and interpretation of Courts or:der.
                                                                                 c
          Constitution of India, Art.ic/e 141; Court's decision laying down

I   position in law binding on all. '

          Administrative law.
                                                                                 D
                   • instructions-Whether create estoppel against
         Administrative
    subsequent directions.

          This Court by its order dated 18th April 1985 in Uninn of India v.
    Rajnikant Bros. (Civil Appeal No. 1423 of 1984) directed that save and
    except items which were specifically banned under the prevalent Import
    Policy at the time of import, parties would. be entitled to import all
    ~ther items whether 'canalised' or 'uncanalised' and in accordance with
    the relevant rules. The effect of this direction came to be considered in
    Raj Prakash Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, [1986] 2 sc·c 297, and
    M/s. fndo Afghan Chamber of Commerce & Ors. v. Union of India,
    (AIR 1986 SC 1567). The effect has also been expl,ained in Union of          F
    India v. M/s. Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd., (S.L.P. No. 8144of1986).

          The applicant was neither a party nor was served with any notice
    of the aforesaid proceedings. The respondents having not permitted
    clearance of its goods in view of the decisions in Ra/ Prak ash's case and
    Jndo Afghan Chamber of Commerce's case the applicant liled petitions         G
    contending that it was not bound by the directions contained
                                                              , . therein.
          Disposing of the petitions, the Court,

          HELD: Decisions of this Court laying ilown the position in law,
    are laws binding on all. [782G]                                              H

                                       78 J
    782                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [1986] 3 S.C.R.

A         Whether importation of canalised items would be covered by the
    order. was not adverted to in the first order dafed 18th April, 1985. Use
    of the expression "Whether canalised or not" was intended to convey
    that both canalised and non-canalised items would be covered witliin
    the ambitofthe order. [783G)
B         The position has been clarified by the respondent's letter dated
    June 18, 1986. The Government of India's letter dated April 23, 1986
    which is not in consonance with the subsequent direction, would not in
    any way affect the position or create any estoppel. Nor can such a letter
    be used as an argument that that was the Government's understanding
    of the matter. [783H; 784A-B)
c
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Misc. Petitions
    Nos. 20021-22 of 1986.

                                        in

D         Civil Appeal No. 2924 of 1984.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 22.7.1983 of the Delhi High
    Court in W.P. No. 963 of 1982.

          S.N. Kacker, P.M. Amin, Atul, B. Munim and Ashok Grover
E   for the Applicant.

         A.K. Ganguli, Miss Sushma tlelan .and Miss A. Subhashini for
    the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
         . SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. These two Civil Misc. Petitions
    are ~y Star Diamond Company India. The applicant has referred to
    the judgments of this Court in Raj Prakash's case I1986) 2 SCC 297
    dated 5th March, 1986 and Jndo Afghan Chamber of Commerce's case
    AIR 1986 SC 1567 dated 15th May, 1986. The applicant states that the
G   applicant was neither a party nor was served with anynotice of the said
    proceedings resulting in the said two decisions. According to the
    applicant, it was not bound by the directions therein. We are unable to
    accept the said contentions. Such decisions of Court laying down the
    position in law are laws binding on all.                              ·

H          In the order of this Court dated 18th April, 1985, the question of
                  STAR DIAMOND v. U.0.1. {MUKHARJI,J.J                  783

  entitlement 'under certain circumstances came up for consideration.          A
  The Government had wrongfully refused to allow Export House
  Certificates to those who had not diversified their exports. It was held
  by this Court following the decisions of several High Courts that this
  was wrong. This Court in the order dated 18th April, 1985 in Civil
  Apeal No. 1423 of 1984, (a) confirmed the orders of the High Court,
  quashed the impugned orders of the Government and directed the               B·
· Government to issue necessary Export House Certificates for the year
  197.8-79; (b) It was further directed that Export House Certificates
  should be granted within 'three months from this date. (c) Save and
  except items which are 'specifically banned under the prevalent in)port
  policy at the time of import', the parties-the merchants would be
  entitled to import all other items whether canalised or uncanalised,         c
  and in accordance with the relevant rules. Both canalised and un-
  canalised items could be imported in accordance with the relevant rules
  except those which were specifically banned under the prevalent
  import policy at the time of import.· The effect of this direction came to
  be considered in Raj Prakash <;hemicals Ltd. v. Union of India
  (supra). We have this date explained the effect of the same in Union of      D.
  India v. Mis Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd & Anr., (Civil Appeal No. 3418186
  arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8144 of 1986). This question further
  came up for examination in the case of Mis Jndo Afghan Chamber of
  Commerce & Ors. v. Union of India, (Writ Petition No. 199 of 1986)
  (supra). This day we have also in the judgment in Mis Godrej Soap's
  case explained the true purport of the said decision.                        E

       The respondents have not permitted, according to the applicant
 clearance of the goods in view of the said two decisions referred to
 hereinbefore.

       The case of the applicant is that it is not bound as the applicant      F
 was neither a party to any of the aforesaid proceedings nor any notice
 was given. We are unable to accept this position. For what we held in
 the said two decisions, we crave leave to refer to the said two
 decisions. We reiterate as we have mentioned in Mis Godre/ Soaps'
 case whether importation of canalised items would be covered by the
 order was not adverted to in the first order dated 18th April, 1985. Use      G
 of the expression "whether canalised or not" was intended to convey
 that both canalised and non-canalised items would be covered within
 the ambit of the order.

      The position has been clarified by the Jetter dated 18th June,
 1986 written by the respondent which appears at page 132 of the Paper         H
                                            •

    784                   SUPREl.IE COURT REPORTS           11986] 3 S.C.R.

A   Book. It has been mentioned that the holders of additional licence
    issued for 1978-79 would be entitled to import only those goods which
    are included in Appendix 6 Part Il of AM 85-88. The fact that the
    Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance
    (Department of Revenue) on 23rd April, 1986 wrote a letter which is
    not in consonance with the subsequent direction would not in any way
B   affect the position or create any estoppel. Nor can such a letter be used
    as an argument that that was the government's understanding of the
    matter. That is irrelevant.
          In the premises the i!Jterim order prayed for in these appli-
    cations is refused.

C         The applications are thus disposed of. There will be no order as
    to costs.

    P.S.S.