9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Restrictions on the export of silver products. 2. Validity of the Exports (Control) Orders and public notices. 3. Application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. 4. Legislative vs. executive character of government actions. Summary: Issue 1: Restrictions on the export of silver products The petitioners challenged the restrictions placed on the export of products wholly or mainly of silver with more than 50% silver content. They argued that paragraph 316 of the Hand Book constituted "statutory promises," entitling them to export the balance quantity of goods under a partially executed contract. The court held that the petitioners' reliance on promissory estoppel was based on a misconception. Government policies under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, are liable to change in the public interest. The court found that paragraph 316 did not constitute a "statutory promise" and that the petitioners could not claim any right to export under it. Issue 2: Validity of the Exports (Control) Orders and public notices The petitioners in C.W.P. No. 1432 of 1979 challenged the validity of the Exports (Control) 43rd Amendment Order, 1979, and the public notice dated 13th August, 1979. The court held that the Exports (Control) Orders are legislative in character and can be amended from time to time. The delegation of legislative power is necessary and facilitates administration. The court emphasized that against the legislature, the doctrine of estoppel cannot be pleaded. Issue 3: Application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel The petitioners invoked the doctrine of promissory estoppel, arguing that they acted on the government's representation and altered their position to their detriment. The court discussed the evolution of the doctrine in cases like Indo-Afghan Agencies and Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills. It concluded that promissory estoppel could not be applied against legislative actions or when public interest demands otherwise. The court found that the government had shown that the change in policy was in the best public interest, thus overriding the petitioners' claim. Issue 4: Legislative vs. executive character of government actions The court distinguished between legislative and executive actions, stating that Exports (Control) Orders made u/s 3 of the Act have statutory force and are legislative in character. Public notices and guidelines, on the other hand, are administrative instructions. The court held that while promissory estoppel could apply to executive actions, it could not be used to fetter legislative powers. The court emphasized that public interest outweighs private interests in such cases. Conclusion: The court dismissed both writ petitions, holding that the doctrine of promissory estoppel could not be applied to legislative actions and that the government had acted in the public interest by changing the export policy. The petitioners were not entitled to any relief, and the petitions were dismissed with costs.
|
