The court held that while the policy period had expired, unfair treatment in processing applications warranted a refund of license fees to eligible petitioners.

JUDGMENT :

MUNNURI LAXMAN, J.

This order disposes of the following writ petitions:

A. SBCWP No.2502/2024 :

1) This writ petition has been filed challenging the Public Notice dated 08.06.2023 and also subsequent Public Notice dated 14.02.2024. The petitioner herein is the one of the applicant enlisted in the provisional list No.II, which was uploaded on 23.06.2023

B. SBCWP Nos. 9155/2023, 9119/2023, 9156/2023, 9157/2023, 9158/2023, 9159/2023, 9160/2023, 9161/2023, 9162/2023, 9163/2023, 9164/2023, 9166/2023 & 7747/2024:

1) The aforementioned writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who are the applicants for grant of permission to import watermelon seeds. Their names could not be found in the provisional list uploaded on 23.06.2023 and they are assailing the Public Notice dated 08.06.2023. The petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7747/2024 also challenged the subsequent third Public Notice dated 09.04.2024.

C. FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS:

1) The main grievance of the petitioner in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2502/2024 is that even though his name is found in the provisional list No.II, an unfair treatment was given by the respondents in finalizing the import licence vis-a-vis the provisional selected applicants among 217 whose names are found in the provisional list No.I.

2) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner could not get import permission because of unfair treatment of the persons found in the provisional list No.II vis-a-vis persons found in the provisional list No.I. According to him, in the provisional list No.II, even though he was provisionally selected subject to verification of credentials with regard to processing capacity, they were not allotted any kind of quantity and they were unfairly treated, and no immediate action was taken in pursuance of inspection, which was found to be in favour of the petitioner and thereby intervening circumstance of stay order was passed by this Court in another writ petition. As a result, the petitioner though provisionally selected but for the unfair treatment and delay in action, the petitioner deprived of the benefit under the Import Policy dated 08.06.2023.

3) The petitioners in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.9155/2023, 9119/2023, 9156/2023, 9157/2023, 9160/2023, 9161/2023, 9163/2023, 9166/2023 & 7747/2024, have challenged the Public Notice dated 08.06.2023. The petitioners are the applicants for grant of permission for importing watermelon seeds and they made applications in compliance of Public Notice No.13/2023 dated 08.06.2023. The petitioners’ claim is that they were holding Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) licence and they are involved in import of watermelon seeds for the past many years. Further, they also have own processing capacity and they fulfill all the conditions of the Public Notice dated 08.06.2023. In spite of fulfilling all the conditions, the petitioners’ names were not found in the provisional list, which was uploaded on 23.06.2023. On the said background, they have filed the present writ petitions, in which interim orders were passed on 07.07.2023 and on subsequent dates staying the further action based on the provisional list, which was uploaded on 23.06.2023.

4) The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that they imported watermelon seeds for the years 2020-2021, 2021-2022, 2022-2023. Further, they have own processing capacity. Therefore, they are entitled for weightage as prescribed under Condition No.3 of the Public Notice. In spite of having such eligibility, their names were not found in the provisional list.

5) Mr. R.D.R