( 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 RETAILERS AND wholesalers IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF INDIA, IS SEEKING TO agitate THE GRIEVANCE ON BEHALF OF THIS CLASS OF PERSONS. THE RESPONDENTS, APART FROM UOI AND FOREIGN investment PROMOTION BOARD ( FOR SHORT, `fipb ) ALSO include PRIVATE RESPONDENTS NO. 4 TO 8 AGAINST WHOM THE grievance OF SUCH RETAIL TRADE IS BEING MADE BY THE petitioners.

( 4 ) THE POLICY IN QUESTION IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN FRAMED IN the YEAR 1997 IN THE FORM OF GUIDELINES MEANT TO ASSIST fipb TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSALS. IN TERMS OF PARA 8 OF the GUIDELINES IN RESPECT OF TRADING BUSINESS, 100% FDI is PERMITTED IN CASE OF TRADING COMPANIES FOR CASH AND carry WHOLESALE TRADING AND FDI UP TO 100% IS ALSO permitted FOR E-COMMERCE ACTIVITIES SUBJECT TO CERTAIN conditions, BUT SUCH COMPANIES ARE TO ENGAGE ONLY IN business TO BUSINESS ( FOR SHORT, `b2b SALES ) E- commerce AND NOT IN RETAIL TRADING. THIS ASPECT HAS BEEN referred TO SINCE THE CONCEPT OF B2b TRADING IS REALLY the MAIN ISSUE, WHICH ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE present DISPUTE. A PRESS RELEASE IS ALSO STATED TO HAVE been ISSUED ON 05. 06. 2000 STATING THAT THE GOI HAS received REPRESENTATIONS FROM VARIOUS QUARTERS AGAINST permitting FDI IN RETAIL TRADING AND THAT UNDER THE current POLICY, SUCH FDI IN RETAIL TRADING IS NOT permissible.

( 5 ) THE PETITIONERS HAVE ALSO RELIED UPON OTHER DOCUMENTS including THE REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE IN may, 2002 RECOMMENDING AGAINST FDI IN RETAIL SECTOR. THE basis FOR THIS IS STATED TO BE THE FACT THAT RETAIL sector IN INDIA IS DISPERSED, WIDESPREAD, LABOUR intensive AND DISORGANIZED.

( 6 ) RESPONDENT NO. 4 IS M/s. METRO CASH and CARRY PVT. LTD. , which IS AN INDIAN COMPANY; WHILE RESPONDENT NO. 5 IS m/s. METRO CASH and CARRY GMBH, WHICH IS A FOREIGN corporation. THIS GROUP WAS GRANTED PERMISSION VIDE THE approval DATED 05. 12. 2000 FOR ESTABLISHING A STATE OF THE art CASH AND CARRY COMPLEX FOR FOOD AND NON-FOOD PRODUCTS at URBAN LOCATIONS. THE APPROVAL WAS, HOWEVER, MADE subject TO THE CONDITION THAT THE COMPANY WOULD NEED TO ensure THAT SELLING OF THE PRODUCTS STOCKED BY IT IS TO retailers WHO WOULD POSSESS SALES-TAX REGISTRATION AND not TO CONSUMERS. A PRESS RELEASE IS ALSO STATED TO HAVE been ISSUED AGAIN THEREAFTER ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN reports IN A SECTION OF THE PRESS DEALING WITH THIS permission. THIS PRESS RELEASE CLARIFIED THAT THERE IS no RETAIL TRADE PERMITTED AND CASH AND CARRY WHOLESALE business IS FOR SALE TO RETAILERS HAVING VALID SALES-TAX registration. THE PRESS REPORT IS AS UNDER:

"no FDI PERMITTED IN RETAIL TRADING - PRESS NOTE THERE HAVE BEEN REPORTS IN A SECTION OF THE press RECENTLY CONVEYING AN IMPRESSION THAT FDI IN RETAIL trading HAS BEEN PERMITTED IN SOME CASES. IT IS clarified THAT UNDER THE PRESENT POLICY, FDI IS NOT permitted TO DOMESTIC RETAIL TRA