BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1. Amendment granted.

2. These appeals, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, arise out of two different sets of petitions and different judgments rendered in each group of such petitions. In common though is challenge to the policy circular dated 17.09.2013 issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce (SEZ Divisions).

2.1 In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1548 of 2017 and group matters, the judgment under challenge is dated 24.01.2017 by which the learned Single Judge, set aside the policy dated 17.09.2013 on units in SEZs carrying on recycling of plastic scrap or waste. The petitioners therein were in the business of manufacturing recycled plastic raw material from imported scrap.

2.2 In Letters Patent Appeal No. 694 of 2017 and allied appeals, the judgment under challenge is dated 14.02.2017. The petitioners therein also were engaged in the business activities of import of worn and used clothing and thereafter, segregating and reconditioning the same into export worthy grade and non-exportable grade clothing. Export worthy grade clothing was thereafter exported whereas non-exportable grade clothing was used after mutilation for obtaining industrial raw materials like industrial wiper, chindy and mutilated rags. In such cases too, the prayer was to set aside the policy circular dated 17.09.2013 which was a policy to regulate functioning of worn and used clothing units in SEZs. In such petitions too, the learned Single Judge set aside the circulars.

2.3 Aggrieved by these judgments of the learned Single Judge, the Union of India is in appeal. Applications were filed by the original petitioners in these appeals for certain directions. Since, pending the appeals, the judgments of the learned Single Judges are stayed, we requested the learned advocates to address us on the appeals rather than on the applications for directions and it is in this context that the appeals were heard.

3. As far as the controversy involved with regard to plastic units in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1548 of 2017 and allied matters are concerned, for the sake of brevity, since the facts are not in dispute, rather than reiterate them, the same as set out by the learned Single Judge are reproduced hereunder (Special Civil Application No. 6107 of 2015):

"3.1 Since around 1997, about 20 units have been manufacturing recycled plastic raw material from the imported plastic scrap in the zone which was earlier known as Kandla Free Trade Zone. These units were established in the area which was treated as an Export Processing Zone (EPZ). Permission to each petitioner was granted for establishing the units on certain terms and conditions.

3.2 In the year 2000, the Government of India came out with a special economic zone scheme under the Export Import Policy. Under the scheme, SEZs were set up in India for the first time. The Government of India issued a public advertisement and declared that certain Zones including Kandla, Santacruze (Mumbai), Kochi and Surat which were Export Processing Zones, to be converted into Special Economic Zones. In the said advertisement, certain features were described to attract the manufacturers to invest money by establishing different types of manufacturing units which were subsequently incorporated under the SEZ Act. Accordingly, a Resolution was issued by the Government of India on 1.11.2000, as far as Kandla Free Trade Zone is concerned. As per the said publicity made by the Government of India, the units which were in existence in Special Economic Zone on 1.11.2000, is to be a positive Net Foreign Exchange earner within a period of 3 years, as well as, permitted to sell of the manufactured goods in Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) on payment of full custom duty subject to import policy in force. The petitioners having found attractive benefits, continued to manufacture the plastic raw mate