JUDGMENT

1. At the outset, it is imperative to set out the description of each of these matters. LPA Nos. 25/2021, 70/2021 and 71/2021 have been filed by the Appellants challenging the common Judgment dated 15.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, disposing W.P.(C) Nos. 3709/2020, 3773/2020 and 3773/2020, respectively.

2. W.P.(C) 5749/2021 has been filed by the Petitioners challenging the Minutes of Meeting dated 10.05.2021, Public Notices dated 31.03.2021 and 17.04.2020 issued by the DGFT as well as Letter dated 04.05.2020 issued by Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (hereafter, "APPCB").

3. W.P.(C) 6258/2022 has been filed by the Petitioners challenging the Minutes of Meeting dated 09.03.2022, Public Notice dated 10.02.2022 issued by the DGFT as well as Letter and Report dated 08.10.2020 and 03.10.2018 issued by APPCB.

4. On account of the similarity in the present matters, we deem it apposite to take up LPA 25/2021 as the lead case and findings in the same will by implication determine the fate of other matters.

5. The factual matrix of the present matters is premised upon various Minutes of Meetings (hereafter, "MoM") and Public Notices issued by Respondent No. 2, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (hereafter, "DGFT") whereby the DGFT has inter alia determined the criteria for allocation of imported Raw Pet Coke (hereafter, "RPC") and thereafter proceeded to allocate such imported RPC among various entities engaged in the business of using the imported RPC to produce Calcine Pet Coke (hereafter, "CPC").

6. LPA 25/2021 has been filed impugning the Judgement and Order dated 15.01.2021, in W.P. (C) 3709/2020 (hereafter, "Impugned Order"), in terms of which the Ld. Single Judge refused to:

a. Quash Minutes of Meeting (hereafter, "MoM") dated 03.06.2020 of the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (Respondent No. 2 herein) to the extent that it allocated Raw Pet Coke (hereafter, "RPC")for a production capacity in excess of 200,000 Metric Tonnes (hereafter, "MT") to M/s Sanvira Industries (Respondent No. 3 herein); and,

b. Pass consequential orders to stay the import of any RPC allocated to Respondent No. 3 subsequent to said MoM and re-allocate all eligible allocatees the additional RPC which would be freed up subsequent to removing the amount in excess of 200,000 MT allocated to Respondent No.3.

7. The Appellants and Respondent No. 3 are calciners who are dependent on imported RPC which is the main raw material used to produce CPC. It is not in dispute that the Appellant as well as Respondent No. 3 are entirely dependent on the import of RPC as that and that the same is an essential raw material in the calciner industry. The Appellant is aggrieved by the alleged excess allocation of RPC to Respondent No. 3, which the Appellant contends, has been made in excess of stipulated parameters.

8. The present matter is to be analyzed within the framework of certain orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court. The said policy framework, Orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court along with the specific facts of this matter are set out hereinbelow:

a. On 22.04.2017, the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) issued an authorization order inter alia granting consent to Respondent No. 3 to operate its unit in Vishakhapatnam for manufacturing CPC up to a quantity of 2,00,000 MTPA. The Consent to Operate (hereafter, "CTO") was granted in terms of Sections 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 read with Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollutio