BHATINDA CHEMCIALS LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judicial review of public policies is limited to finding out whether the policy violates any law validly enacted or fundamental or constitutional right guaranteed to the citizens. The wisdom underlying any such policy cannot be examined by the Courts who have resisted the temptation of examining whether a particular public policy was beneficial for the system or whether a better policy could be evolved in its place. The predominant reason why courts have been slow in entertaining issues regarding the suitability of a particular policy, whether economic or otherwise, is the lack of expertise required to adjudicate upon matters that go into the formulation of such policies. The result is that public policies are allowed to stay untouched by judicial interference unless it is found to be so violative of the constitutional limits or so abhorrent to reason that interference becomes necessary. The legal position in this regard is settled by a catena of decisions delivered by the Apex court from time to time. Before we refer to some of those decisions, we may briefly set out the factual backdrop in which the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions in which the prayers made by them in essence exhort the Court to review the policy underlying import of edible oils from Sri Lanka under an Indo-Lankan Free Trade Agreement (FTA).

(2.) Petitioner No. 1 M/s Bhatinda Chemicals Ltd. is engaged in manufacture of Vanaspati while petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are Associations of Vanaspati manufacturers in the States of Punjab, U.P. and Rajasthan. They have, in the present writ petitions, assailed notifications dated 01.03.2000 and 18.03.2003 issued by the Government of India granting 100% import duty exemption to import of edible oil/Vanaspati from Sri Lanka under the Indo-Lankan Free Trade Agreement referred to earlier. This agreement was executed between Government of India and Government of Sri Lanka on 28.12.1998 with the basic objective of developing economic relations between the two countries through expansion of trade by providing fair conditions of competition for trade on the principle of reciprocity by removing trade barriers to provide a level playing field for their competing industries. The agreement inter alia provided that any product to be eligible for preferential treatment under the FTA will have to satisfy the criteria provided under the 'Rules of Origin' as set out in the appendix to the Agreement.

(3.) The petitioners' case is that after the execution of the agreement, the Sri Lankan Government came out with brochures with a view to attracting Indian investors to invest and set up industries in Sri Lanka and avail the benefits of FTA. These brochures claimed that Sri Lanka would under the FTA be a cheaper source of raw material and machinery with lower cost of production for domestic and Indian manufacturers. Goods manufactured and exported from Sri Lanka would be entitled to preferential tariffs and thereby help existing and new industries to enter the Indian market apart from exporting the products to the international market.