( 1 ) THE LIBERALIZATION AND OPENING OF THE INDIAN ECONOMY has SEEN FOREIGN INVESTMENT FLOW INTO DIFFERENT SECTORS. SUCH INFLOW IS, HOWEVER, NOT UNREGULATED AND IT IS restrictive IN CERTAIN AREAS OF BUSINESS. THE GOVERNMENT of INDIA ( FOR SHORT, `goi ) HAS IN ITS WISDOM NOT permitted FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT ( FOR SHORT, `fdi ) in RETAIL TRADE. ON THIS, THERE IS NO DISPUTE. FDI HAS been PERMITTED IN WHOLESALE TRADE ON CASH AND CARRY basis. OVER THIS ALSO, THERE IS NO DISPUTE. THE PRESENT writ PETITION, HOWEVER, INVOLVES THE QUESTION OF interpreting OF THIS CONCEPT OF `cash AND CARRY WHOLESALE trade .

( 2 ) THE PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT UNDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE policy UNDER THE GARB OF A CLARIFICATION DATED 05/10. 12. 2002, IN FACT, RETAIL TRADE HAS BEEN PERMITTED clothing IT WITH THE CONCEPT OF WHOLESALE CASH AND CARRY trade THROUGH BUSINESS TO BUSINESS SALES. ON THE other HAND, THE UNION OF INDIA ( FOR SHORT, `uoi ) AS well AS THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT WHAT HAS been PERMITTED IS ONLY WHOLESALE CASH AND CARRY TRADE AS understood IN THE INTERNATIONAL PARLANCE.

( 3 ) PETITIONER NO. 1, WHO CLAIMS TO BE AN APEX TRADE association HAVING MEMBERSHIP FROM R