CREATIVE HANDICRAFTS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the decision of the Government to withdraw the Cash Compensatory support in respect of exports made after 1.1.1970. Cash compensatory support in respect of exports was introduced w.e.f. 1.4.78 pursuant to the Government's policy announced on 29.3.1978. In January, 1979, the Government announced a policy decision to withdraw or cancel the Cash Compensatory scheme in respect of exports made from 1st January, 1979 to 31st March, 1979. The challenge to this policy has been made mainly on the ground that the respondents were duty bound to honour their unequivocal assurance given by it with the intention or knowledge that such commitment would be acted upon by the petitioners and they were thus estopped by the principles of promissory estoppel from withdrawing the said scheme as the petitioners had legitimately expected that the scheme would continue till the end of financial year 1978-79 and had made firm commitments in that regard.

(2.) The challenge to the decision of the Union to withdraw the cash compensatory scheme from 1st January, 1979, in my opinion, is no longer res-integra inasmuch as the Supreme Court in a judgment reported as P.T.R. Exports (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 3461 has held that a person has no vested right to have export or import licences in terms of the policies in force at the date of his making application and grant of licence depends upon the policy prevailing as on the date of the grant of licence. It was held that the Court, therefore, would not bind the Government with a policy which was existing on the date of application as per previous policy. A prior decision would not bind the Government for all times to come. When the Government is satisfied that change in the policy was necessary in the public interest, it would be entitled to revise the policy and lay down new policy. The Court, therefore, would prefer to allow free play to the Government to evolve fiscal policy in the public interest and to act upon the same. Equally, the Government is left fee to determine priorities in the matters of applications or allotments or utilisation of its finance in the public interest. It is equally entitled, therefore, to issue or withdraw or modify the export or import policy in accordance with the scheme evolved. It was, therefore, held that such a policy decision cannot be challenged on the ground of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectations. Some of the observations of the Court which are relevant for the present case are as under:-

(3.) It is thus clear that the petitioner having no vested right to have import or export licenses for export of good, he cannot challenge the policy on the ground of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation. The matter being fully covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, in my opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.