JAIN SHUDH VANASPATI LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this group of petitions the respective petitioners pray. for a writ of certiorari quashing the rejection of their respective applications for grant of import licences to import into India Palm Oil, a writ of certiorari quashing certain conditions imposed by the Import Policy contained in a Public Notice dated February 22, 1978 as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue import licences to the said petitioners for import of Palm Oil which they had respectively contracted to import from foreign sellers in pursuance of Import Policy announced by. the Central Government which was suddenly changed by a Public Notice dated January 13, 1978. Since all the petitions raised common questions of law and had more or less similar avermepts offacts, we .heard them althogether, Unfortunately, return was filed only on Civil Writ No. 78 of 1980. No returns were filed in the other matters as the respondents wanted to rest their case merely on law. Finding some difficulty during the course of hearing in appreciatimg facts we directed the respondente to produce the relevant record which was seen by us. It would have been desirable if the respondents had put in returns in each of the cases. Be that as it may, we beard the counsel and reserved judgment. Before we would pronounce our judgment, a pronouncement of the Supreme Court came to our notice which aecessitated a re-hearing. We have re-heard the matter and now proceed to judgment.

(2.) The petitioners' case is that they carry on business, inter alia, of crushinng oil-seeds and refining vegetable oil, both locally purchased and imported. The manufacture and sale of refined oil is regulated by the Vegetable Oil Product Producers (Regulation of Refined Oil Manufacture) Order, 1973, issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Import Policy for the period April, 1976 to March, 1977 was announced by the Central' Government by a Public Notice bearing No. 6-ITC (PN)\77 dated January 17, 1977. Under this Import Policy import of Palm Oil of all types was declarer to be under an Open General Licence. In consequance- the petitioners contacted foreign parties for purchase and import, of Palm Oil into the country. They applied for grant of import licences. For some time these licences were issued and the petitioners were permitted to import Palm Oil without levy of any customs or Import duty. It is. alleged that the reason why the aforesaid policy statement commitments entered into by Indian parties with overseas suppliers It is. contended by th& petitioners that on the basis of such representations contained in the policy statements issued from time to time they entered into flnn commitinents for import of refined and unrefined palm Oil, Rapeseed Oil, Soyabean Oil, Copra etc. with overeases suppliers. The contracts entered into, inter alla, provided the dates when the shipment would be effected' arid' further provided' that the payment would be made by Indian bilkers by opening' an irrevocable letter of credit established' in' favour of overseas seller. The petitioners entered into such contracts on diverse dates, allged prior to January 13, 1978. Some of them even Opened irrevocable letters of credit in pursuance of the contracts erntered into with overseas suppliers. On January 13, 1978 the respondents issued a Public Notice bearing No. 5-ITC (PN)178 changing with immediate effect the Import Policy regarding import of Palm Oil into India. It will be advantageous' to read the- relevant parts of' this Public Notice which are as under :

(3.) As noticed earlier, the petitioners had applied for issue of import licence on dates prior to January 13, 1978. Their applications were however, rejected by cryptic rejection on the grounds that import of Palm Oil has been banned vide Public Notice dated January 13, 1978. The petitioners challenged this communication as being illegal, arbitrary and void. They further contend that they are not covered by the ban said to have been placed on import of Palm Oil. The ban itself is challenged in the circumstances of the case as being violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. The conditions imposed by the Public Notices dated January 13, 1978 and February 22, 1978 are also challenged as being arbitrary, unreasonable and in violation of petitioners' rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. It has also been contended that the respondents being governed by the rule of promissory estoppel cannot be allowed to act to the detriment of the petitioners in declining to grant import licences to them.