9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SUs and there will be no associate exporters. Guideline not provide as to manner in which contract which are half way through, be dealt with. No material brought on record to support action of withholding of exports. Contracts which has been already acted upon cannot be done away otherwise that in course of law. New policy always effective prospectively. No executive decision capable of being applied retrospectively. Directions for withholding exports without authority of law. - 5083 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 3-3-2010 - A.H. Joshi and P.B. Varale, JJ. S/Shri Subodh Dharmadhikari, Sr. Advocate with Shyam Dewani, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri S.K. Mishra, ASG and Mrs. Ketki Joshi, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent no. 2 - P.E.C. Ltd., were allowed to export. 5. In reply, learned Senior Adv. Mr. S.P. Dharmadhikari for the petitioner submitted that :- (a) In so far as the export of product is concerned, there exists similarity. (b) The earlier group of petitions, which has been transferred to Hon'ble Supreme Court, pertains to claim of traders to export the rice, when the Govt., had introduced ban on export of rice. (c) Present case stands on totally different footing, since the very foundation of petition is not for challenging anything such as the ban. (d) The challenge in present petition is against indirect retrospective application of executive directions introducing new modalities as regards export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xport. Admittedly, the policy of export of non-Basmati rice is still open, subject to permission. Dispute that exists is as regards the modalities. Therefore, this Court is required to scrutinize a very limited question. 14. Brief background of petition : Admitted facts (a) Under Section 5 read with Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992, and furtherance to Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-09, Union of India has permitted export of boiled Non-Basmati rice to South Africa. (b) The Union of India has appointed the respondent No. 2 - P.E.C. Ltd., by Notification [Annex. A] dated 18th June, 2009, a copy whereof is at page 28, as the authorized agency, through whom export is to be done. (c) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the policy decision, the process of export was held in abeyance. (k) Ultimately, it has come on record through the affidavit that new guidelines are finalized and, therefore, existing contracts are deferred, though not cancelled. 15. In the process of hearing, learned Asstt. Solicitor General tendered for perusal of Court copy of new guidelines dated 18th February, 2010. We have perused the guidelines. 16. It is seen that the object of the new guidelines is that the P.E.C., Ltd., should procure the rice only through Public Sector Undertakings and there will not be any associate exporter [any middleman] and procurement may also be done by tendering process etc. 17. The guidelines do not provide as to the manner in which co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dy brought into the godowns of the P.E.C. Ltd., was permitted to be exported. 22. Admittedly, export is not banned, it is authorized, and only change is the modality. 23. In any case, the contract which has been already acted upon, cannot be done away otherwise than in the course of law. In this background, this Court finds that the action of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in directing holding back all the contracts for some time may have been prudent, however, the holding back cannot be done for indefinite period or in perpetuity. The communication sent by the respondent No. 2 directing withholding the contract or even directing the respondents to take back the rice is without any authority of law or even any support of the changed policy. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
