AVADH BEHARI ROHATGI, J

( 1 ) THIS is a companion judgement to the one we have just delivered in Bombay Conductors and Electrical Ltd. v. K. Chandramouli, C. W. P. No. 1295 of 1980. Its companionship resides in the fact that the petitioners in these two cases also found their claim on promissory estoppel as in Bombay Conductors. I will deal with the two petitions separately. C. W. P. No. 310 of 1980.

( 2 ) THE challenge in his writ petition is to the restrictions placed on the export of products wholly or mainly of silver with more than 50 per cent silver contents.

( 3 ) THE petitioners entered into a contract dated 25-3-1977 with the foreign buyers for the supply of 25 tonnes of Indian Real Zari Badia. A part of the supply was made. Before the remaining supply could be made the Central Government changed the policy. The policy as laid down in the Export (Control) order 1977 was that the manufactures and products wholly or mainly of silver with more than 50 per cent of silver contents, excluding silver Zari goods, were permitted to be exported under the open general licence. This policy was changed on 30-3-1979. Under the Export (Control) 22nd Amendment Order dated 30-3-1979 this item was deleted from the open general licence and was placed under the heading "on merits" which meant that the exporter concerned will have to apply to the Licensing Authority for permission or licence to export.

( 4 ) CONTEMPORANEOUSLY with the amendment of the Export Control Order the Central Government issued a Public Notice dated 30-3-1979 informing the public about the change in the policy. This Public Notice stated that the provisions of Paragraph 316 of the Hand Book of Import Export procedures will not be applicable to any "pre-ban commitments" consequent to this Public Notice. It was said that all such cases will be decided "on merits" only.

( 5 ) ON 12-9-1979 the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports issued another public Notice setting out the new guidelines for deciding the pre-ban or pre-control cases affected by the Public Notice dated 3 0-3-1979.

( 6 ) THE case of the petitioners is that Paragraph 316 of the Hand Book constitutes "statutory promises" (I use their term) and in accordance therewith they are entitled to export the balance quantity of the goods under their partially executed contract. Such a case, it is contended, is covered by Paragraph 316 which saves pre-control commitments . The petitioner, therefore, say that the Public Notice dated 12-9-1979 should be quashed and on the ground of promissory estoppel they should be allowed to export the remainder quantity in accordance with Paragraph 316 of the Hand Book.

( 7 ) THE Central Government in their affidavit have stated that the policy had to be changed to conserve the stocks of silver. It was necessary for the Government to restrict the export of manufactures of silver after taking into considera- tion all the relevent factors. The change, it was said, was necessitated by consideration of international trade and the need felt to conserve silver.

( 8 ) IN my opinion, the petitioners reliance on promissory estoppel is based an a misconception of the ture nature of the doctrine. The Government policies framed under the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947 (the Act) are liable to be changed in the public interest according to the needs of the country. By the Export Control Order of 30-3-1979 the Government did not impose a ban on export of the goods in question. The Order only restricted the export to cases to be decided on merits . To pre-control cases Paragraph 316 was made inapplicable and in place of that Paragraph new guidelines were laid down on 12-9-3. 979.

( 9 ) I cannot accept that paragraph 316 of the Hand Book constitutes a statutory promise against which the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be properly pressed. If they are "statutory promises", as the petitioners call them, they can be changed by the statutory, authority. But I do not think they ar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document