2018 Supreme(Kar) 1238

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B. VEERAPPA, J.
M/s Om Traders Rep. by its Proprietor Sri. Putta Swamy – Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India, Rep. by Secretary Ministry of Commerce and Industry – Respondent
W.P. Nos. 42295-42297, 58197-58198, 65486-65487 of 2016, 22952-22955 of 2017
Decided On : 09-02-2018

Headnote:

Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Section 5 and 6, 6(3) - Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 - Section 3(1), 5, 4, 3, 9A(4)(b) , 9, 3(4) , 3(2), 3(3), 3(c) , 11 (2) , 9A , 18-A , 2,11 and 11(3) - Narcotic Drugs Act, 1961 - Import and Export Control Act, 1947 - Customs Act, 1992 - Section 11 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14, 19(1)(g), 226, 227, 19(6), 19(1)(a), 47 and 32 - Import of Poppy Seeds - Grant an Order of Ad-Interim Injunction - Whether country of origin has an available stock of poppy seeds for export, which is permitted under Single Convention - Whether country of origin is capable of exporting poppy seeds - Whether on touchstone of reasonableness policy decision comes out unscathed - Whether Central Government is justified in amending Condition No. 3(c) of import policy, imposing quantitative restriction, if any per importer under provisions of Section 3 of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 - Whether issuance of guidelines for registration of sale contracts for import of poppy seeds from Turkey and China Governments restricting applicants to register sale contracts for quantity applied for, or ninety metric tons, whichever is less and selection of applicants through ‘draw of lots’ are violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to petitioners under Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India - Whether petitioners have made out a case to quash public notices issued by Narcotics Commissioner, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Central Bureau of Narcotics in compliance of guidelines issued by Government of India, Ministry of Finance, fixing final country cap for import of poppy seeds from Turkey and China Governments - Whether petitioners have made out a case to interfere with Condition No. 3(c) of amended import policy issued by Central Government, exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India - Whether policy now sought to be adopted by respondents of categorization of importers lacks a rational basis - Whether provision is directory or mandatory - Whether object of legislation will be defeated or furthered - Whether there could be more appropriate or better alternatives - Whether policy in question is formulated keeping in mind all relevant facts and said policy can be held to be beyond pale of discrimination or unreasonableness, bearing in mind material on record - Whether legislature or executive has acted within powers and functions assigned under Constitution - Whether there is any unfairness involved - Whether a wiser or better one can be evolved - Whether policy has been framed by legislature or executive and in either case there should be judicial restraint – Held, Power to lay policy by executive decisions or by legislation includes power to withdraw same unless it is by mala-fide exercise of power, or decision or action taken is in abuse of power - Doctrine of legitimate expectation plays no role when appropriate authority is empowered to take a decision by an executive policy or under law - Court leaves authority to decide its full range of choice within executive or legislative power - In matters of economic policy, it is settled law that court gives a large leeway to executive and legislature - Granting licences for import or export is an executive or legislative policy - Government would take diverse factors for formulating policy in overall larger interest of economy of country - When Government is satisfied that change in policy was necessary in public interest it would be entitled to revise policy and lay down a new policy – In Court opinion there should be judicial restraint in fiscal and economic regulatory measures - State should not be hampered by Court in such measures unless they are clearly illegal or unconstitutional - All administrative decisions in economic and social spheres are essentially ad hoc and experimental - Since economic matters are extremely complicated this inevitably entails special treatment for distinct social phenomena - State must therefore be left with wide latitude in devising ways and means of imposing fiscal regulatory measures, and Court should not, unless compelled by statute or by Constitution, encroach into this field - Central Government taking into consideration all surrounding circumstances and fact that poppy seeds is a special produce, amended condition No. 3(c) of import policy as a policy decision exercising its legislative domain in order to distribute poppy seeds to all applicants who aspire for import of poppy seeds and in order to avoid monopoly by any one of applicants - Petitioners have not pointed out any mala-fide on part of Central Government while amending condition No. 3 of import policy - Further, there is no violation of fundamental rights of petitioners guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India - Therefore reasonable restriction imposed by Central Government is within parameters of Article 19(6) of Constitution of India and in interest of consumers at large - Therefore Point No. 4 has to be answered in negative holding that petitioners have not made out any case to interfere with Condition No. 3(c) of amended import policy issued by Central Government exercising powers under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India - In view of aforesaid reasons, impugned notification, guidelines and public notices issued by Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are in accordance with law - Petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with same exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India - Petitions dismissed.