Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Maheshwari Magaj Industries vs Union Of India on 20 February, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:9048]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9155/2023
Bhagwati Food Agro Products, Having Its Office At F-13, Mandore
Industrial Area, Jodhpur (Raj.), Through Its Proprietor Daulal
Soni S/o Sawai Ram Ji Soni, Aged About 47 Years, Residing At P
No. 64 Dilip Nagar, Lal Sagar Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of
Commerce And Industries, Having Its Office At Udhyog
Bhawan, New Delhi, 110107.
2. Directorate General Of Foreign Trade, Through Its
Additional Secretary, Having Its Office At Vanijya Bhawan,
A-Wing New Delhi, 110011.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9119/2023
Nakul Agro, Having Its Office At G1 221-A, Mandore Industrial
Area, Mandore Jodhpur (Raj.) Through Its Proprietor Madhu
Sudan Lohiya S/o Late Shri Rambux Ji Lohiya, Aged About 60
Years, R/o G1 221-A, Mandore Industrial Area, Mandore Jodhpur
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of
Commerce And Industries, Having Its Office At Udhyog
Bhawan, New Delhi, 110107
2. Directorate General Of Foreign Trade, Through Its
Additional Secretary, Having Its Office At Vanijya Bhawan,
A Wing, New Delhi, 110011.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9156/2023
Bhagwati Industries, Having Its Office At K. No. 71/7, Plot No. 4,
Village Mandore, Jodhpur (Raj.), Through Its Proprietor Babu Lal
Soni S/o Sawal Ram Ji Soni, Aged About 54 Years, Residing At
G1-221-A, Mandore Industrial Area, Mandore, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
(Downloaded on 20/02/2025 at 10:29:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:9048] (2 of 17) [CW-9155/2023]
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of
Commerce And Industries, Having Its Office At Udhyog
Bhawan, New Delhi, 110107.
2. Directorate General Of Foreign Trade, Through Its
Additional Secretary, Having Its Office At Vanijya Bhawan,
A-Wing New Delhi, 110011.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9157/2023
M/s Hanumant Industries, Having Its Office At G-231 - 232,
Mandore Industrial Area, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, 342007 Through
Its Proprietor Ram Kishor Rathi S/o Seva Ram Rathi, Aged About
Years 55, Residing At 49, Adarsh Nagar, Lal Sagar, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan - 342026.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of
Commerce And Industries, Having Office At Udhyog
Bhawan, New Delhi, 110107.
2. Directorate General Of Foreign Trade Through Its
Additional Secretary, Having Its Office At Vanijya Bhawan,
A - Wing New Delhi, 110011.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9158/2023
M/s Vikas Udyog, Having Its Office At W - 21, Mandore Industrial
Area, Jodhpur, Rajasthan (342001) Through Its Proprietor Vikas
Soni S/o Rajendra Prasad Soni, Aged About 27 Years , Residing
At .238, Khetanadi, Near Icici Bank, Mandore Mandi, Jodhpur,
342007.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of
Commerce And Industries, Having Office At Udhyog
Bhawan, New Delhi, 110107.
2. Directorate General Of Foreign Trade Through Its
Additional Secretary, Having Its Office At Vanijya Bhawan,
A - Wing New Delhi, 110011.
(Downloaded on 20/02/2025 at 10:29:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:9048] (3 of 17) [CW-9155/2023]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9159/2023
M/s Shri Laxmi Trading Co, Having Its F-22, Riico Industrial
Area, Mandore, Jodhpur, Rajasthan 342001 Through Its
Proprietor Ghanshyam Hajarimal Rathi S/o Hajari Mal Rathi,
Aged About 52 Years, Residing At 16, Dadhich Nagar Outside
3Rd Pole, Mahamandir, Jodhpur, Rajasthan - 342006.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of
Commerce And Industries, Having Its Office At Udhyog
Bhawan, New Delhi, 110107.
2. Directorate General Of Foreign Trade, Through Its
Additional Secretary, Having Its Office At Vanijya Bhawan,
A-Wing New Delhi, 110011.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9160/2023
Laxmi Industries, Having Its Office At F 116 A, Mandore
Industrial Area, Jodhpur (Raj.) Through Its Proprietor Santosh
Soni S/o Shyam Ji Soni, Aged About 45 Years , Residing At F 116
A Mandore Industrial Area, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of
Commerce And Industries, Having Office At Udhyog
Bhawan, New Delhi, 110107.
2. Directorate General Of Foreign Trade Through Its
Additional Secretary, Having Its Office Vanijya Bhawan, A
- Wing New Delhi,110011.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9161/2023
Mateshwari Agro Industries, Having Its Office At H-29, Riico
Industrial Area, Mathania, Jodhpur (Raj.) Through Its Proprietor
Hanuman Chandak S/o Mangilal Ji Chandal, Aged About 42
Years, Residing At Ashok Colony, Gali No. 01, Magra Punjla,
Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
(Downloaded on 20/02/2025 at 10:29:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:9048] (4 of 17) [CW-9155/2023]
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of
Commerce And Industries, Having Its Office At Udhyog
Bhawan, New Delhi, 110107.
2. Directorate General Of Foreign Trade, Through Its
Additional Secretary, Having Its Office At Vanijya Bhawan,
A-Wing New Delhi, 110011.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9162/2023
M/s Mohan Agro Industries, Having Its Office Pratap Nagar,
Osianm Jodhpur, Rajasthan - 342303 Through Its Proprietor
Avinash Soni S/o Sewa Ram Soni, Aged About 36yrs, Residing At
Tehsil Road, Osian, Jodhpur, Rajasthan - 342303.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of
Commerce And Industries, Having Its Office At Udhyog
Bhawan, New Delhi, 110107.
2. Directorate General Of Foreign Trade, Through Its
Additional Secretary, Having Its Office At Vanijya Bhawan,
A-Wing New Delhi, 110011.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9163/2023
M/s Gandhi Agro Products, Having Its Office At 9, Spice Park,
Rampura Bhatiya, Jodhpur, Rajasthan - 342305 Through Its
Proprietor Akash Deep Gandhi S/o Ramvilash Gandhi, Aged
About Years 31, Residing At 101, Adarsh Nagar Gali No. 2,
Opposite, Icici Bank, Lalsagar, Jodhpur,kum Mandore Road,
Rajasthan - 342007.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of
Commerce And Industries, Having Office At Udhyog
Bhawan, New Delhi, 110107.
2. Directorate General Of Foreign Trade Through Its
Additional Secretary, Having Its Office At Vanijya Bhawan,
A - Wing New Delhi, 110011.
(Downloaded on 20/02/2025 at 10:29:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:9048] (5 of 17) [CW-9155/2023]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9164/2023
M/s Maheshwari Magaj Industries, Having Its Office H 233-234,
Mandore Industrial Area, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, 3412001 Through
Its Proprietor Suresh Kumar Soni S/o Devi Kishan Soni, Aged
About 47 Years, Residing At 39/40/3, Vishwkarma Nagar,
Bhadwasiya, Jodhpur, Rajasthan 342007.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of
Commerce And Industries, Having Its Office At Udhyog
Bhawan, New Delhi, 110107.
2. Directorate General Of Foreign Trade, Through Its
Additional Secretary, Having Its Office At Vanijya Bhawan,
A-Wing New Delhi, 110011.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9166/2023
Kankaria Industries, Having Its Office At E - 112, Mandore
Industrial Area, Jodhpur, (Raj), Through Its Proprietor Sunila
Kankaria W/o Ramesh Kankaria Aged About Years 49, Residing
At Kankariya Bhawan 1St A Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of
Commerce And Industries, Having Office At Udhyog
Bhawan, New Delhi, 110107.
2. Directorate General Of Foreign Trade Through Its
Additional Secretary, Having Office At Vanijya Bhawan,
A_Wing New Delhi, 11001.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2502/2024
Suchi Impex, G-141, Mandore Industrial Area, Riico, Jodhpur
(Raj.)- Through Its Proprietor- Chinmay Jhanwar S/o Shri Om
Prakash Jhanwar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o B-45, Narsingh
Vihar, Lal Sagar, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 20/02/2025 at 10:29:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:9048] (6 of 17) [CW-9155/2023]
1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of
Commerce And Industries, Government Of India, New
Delhi- 110107.
2. Directorate General Of Foreign Trade, Through Addl.
Secretary, Vanijya Bhawan, A Wing, New Delhi- 110011.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7747/2024
C. M. Agro, Having Its Office At F 20, Mandore Industrial Area
Ricco, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, 342007, Through Its Proprietor
Poonam Gulecha W/o Ankur Gulecha, Aged About 41 Years,
Office Address At F 20, Mandore Industrial Area Ricco, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of
Commerce And Industries, Having Its Office At Udhyog
Bhawan, New Delhi, 110107.
2. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of
Agriculture And Farmers Welfare, Krishi Bhawan, New
Delhi 110001
3. Directorate General Of Foreign Trade, Through Its
Additional Secretary, Having Its Office At Vanijya
Bhawan, A-Wing New Delhi, 110011.
4. Central Board Of Excise And Customs, Through
Commissioner, 815, Nehru Pi Market Road, Nehru Place,
New Delhi, Delhi 110019.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Kothari, Adv.
Mr. Avin Chhangani, Adv.
Mr. Mehul Kothari, Adv.
Mr. Ayush Goyal, Adv.
Mr. Bhavydeep Singh, Adv.
Mr.Pradeep Kheechi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.D.Rastogi, ASG
Mr. B.P.Bohra, Sr.CGPL
Mr. Devesh Yadav, CGC
Mr.Vaibhav Bhansali, Adv.
(Downloaded on 20/02/2025 at 10:29:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:9048] (7 of 17) [CW-9155/2023]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Judgment
Judgment Reserved on : 13/02/2025
Judgment Pronounced on : 20/02/2025
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
[2025:RJ-JD:9048] (8 of 17) [CW-9155/2023]
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
[2025:RJ-JD:9048] (9 of 17) [CW-9155/2023]
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.Rastogi, learned Additional Solicitor General
assisted by Mr. B.P. Bohra, Sr. CGPL, Mr. Devesh Yadav, CGC and
Mr. Vaibhav Bhansali, Adv. appearing for the respondents
contended, in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 2502/2024, that the
prayer in the writ petition has become infructuous since the Policy
period has expired and new policies were also brought in and
there was a Free-Policy from 05.04.2024 upto 30.06.2024
whereunder maximum unlimited permissions were given for
importation of watermelon seeds. According to him, the persons
who had missed the benefit under the impugned Public Notice,
could have imported the watermelon seeds under the Free-Policy,
dehor the previous entitlement on account of intervening
circumstance not attributable to the respondents.
6) It is also his submission that the respondents have put
one of the petitioner's name among 6 persons, who were enlisted
[2025:RJ-JD:9048] (10 of 17) [CW-9155/2023]
under the provisional list No.II uploaded on 23.06.2023 and no
quantity could be allotted on account of verification of credentials
with regard to processing capacity of the petitioner. After
verification, the credentials were found to be correct and
meanwhile, interim orders passed on 07.07.2023 were
communicated, thereby they could not proceed further by granting
appropriate permission for importation of watermelon seeds unlike
217 petitioners, whose names were found in the provisional list
No.I.
7) The contentions of learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in S.B.Civil Writ Petition Nos.9158/2023, 9159/2023,
9162/2023 and 9164/2023 are that the petitioners have fulfilled all
the criteria for importation of watermelon seeds in terms of Public
Notice dated 08.06.2023 and their names were also found in provisional
list No.I. However, the quantity allotted were less than entitlement and
the same was fixed without considering the actual user basis and the
processing capacity. According to learned counsel, such applicants are
entitled for more quantity of watermelon seeds.
8) Learned Additional Solicitor General contended 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, that ex parte orders were obtained even without
impleading the persons whose names were found in the
provisional list as party-respondent in the writ petitions. Without
hearing them, no interim orders could have been passed.
9) It is the further contention of learned Additional Solicitor
General that some of the applicants were ineligible for 30%
weightage for the year 2020-2021, 2021-2022, 2022-2023 as no
[2025:RJ-JD:9048] (11 of 17) [CW-9155/2023]
satisfactory material was placed, showing such consecutive
importation of watermelon seeds. The next contention of the
learned ASG is that in the scrutiny the authorities found that
FSSAI licence is not clear with regard to the processing capacity of
watermelon seeds and that licence was consolidated licence, which
cannot be said to be indicative of separate capacity of watermelon,
which is required to be submitted for fulfilling the condition of
Public Notice.
10) The learned ASG also submitted that since the Policy has
not existing, even the claim of the writ-petitioners found to be
sustainable, no direction can be given to issue permission beyond
the time-limit prescribed under the policy then existing. He also
submitted that some of the petitioners have availed the benefit of
free importation and watermelon seeds, which were introduced
subsequently and any requirement, which they have got from the
impugned Public Notice, had an opportunity to avail the benefit of
free importation. In fact, such opportunities were availed and
therefore, no question of interference at this stage by giving
direction to re-frame the policy by extending the time-limit arises.
11) The learned ASG refuted the contention of the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners whose names were found in
the provisional list No.I. According to him, the quantity has been
prescribed proportionate to the actual user basis as well as the
processing capacity and also number of applicants. The quantity
was proportionately allotted. There is no illegality in the allocation
of watermelon seeds.
12) The petitioners in all the writ petitions are seeking
directions to quash the Public Notice dated 08.06.2023 and in one
[2025:RJ-JD:9048] (12 of 17) [CW-9155/2023]
of the petitioner's case i.e. SBCWP No.2502/2024, the Public
Notice issued subsequently dated 14.02.2024 was also assailed.
In another SBCWP No.7747/2024 apart from challenging of above
two Notifications, the subsequent third Public Notice dated
09.04.2024 was also challenged.
13) The issue in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2502/2023 is that
the petitioner's name was found in the provisional list No.II and no
quantity was allotted in the said provisional list unlike 217
persons, who were allotted quotas under the provisional list. The
difference in two lists is that in the first list, credentials were
verified in advance. Whereas, in the second list, credentials could
not be verified at the time when the list was prepared. However,
they were provisionally enlisted, subject to verification of
credentials with regard to processing capacity.
14) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, whose
names were not found in both the provisional lists have submitted
that they have fulfilled all the conditions of Public Notice. However,
their names were not found in the provisional list and according to
learned counsel, exclusion of the petitioners' name is contrary to
requirements and is unsustainable. He further submitted that on
account of stay, the provisional list No.II could not be finalized and
quantity left thereunder can be directed to be proportionately
distributed in the event of success of the petitioners in the writ
petition. Alternative submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that in the event this Court is not inclined to
interfere in the matter, at least the respondents may be directed
to refund their licence fee.
[2025:RJ-JD:9048] (13 of 17) [CW-9155/2023]
15) The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the
respondents in all writ petitions, has submitted that since the
policy was expired, 217 persons were already granted final import
permission and they have imported, the permission could not be
issued to only 6 persons who were found in the provisional list
No.II on account of intervening circumstance of the order passed
by this Court on 07.07.2023 and subsequent interim orders in
other writ petitions.
16) It is also his submission that the petitioners whose names
were not found in the provisional list, they did not fulfill the
criteria of weightage of 30% as they were not having any data of
importation for the relevant three consecutive years prior to the
year of Public Notice. It is also his submission that FSSAI licence
was not indicative of bifurcation of processing capacity.
D. CONCLUSIONS:
17) I have considered the contentions and claims made in all
the writ petitions. All the petitioners have made an application
under the Public Notice dated 08.06.2023 and that policy was
vogue upto 31.10.2023. The Policy conditions require production
of FSSAI licence to determine the processing capacity of the
applicants. Apart from that, a C.A. certificate with regard to
overall turnover of the applicants and also turnover of watermelon
seeds are required to be provided. The petitioners in all the writ
petitions, whose names were not found in the provisional list,
have submitted the FSSAI licence. According to the learned ASG
appearing for the respondents, the petitioners' name could not be
found in the provisional list on account of two reasons: the first
[2025:RJ-JD:9048] (14 of 17) [CW-9155/2023]
reason is that they are not getting weightage of 30% since they
do not have three consecutive years' criteria of importation;
secondly, as such, they are also not fulfilling the criteria of 70%
weightage, which was based on the processing capacity since
FSSAI licence was not indicative of individual processing capacity
of watermelon seeds.
18) It appears from the material on record that the petitioners
are not having any data with regard to importation of watermelon
seeds for three consecutive years immediate to the Public Notice
year. Therefore, they cannot be said to be entitled for 30%
weightage.
19) The second ground for non-inclusion was attributable to
non-indicative of processing capacity of watermelon in FSSAI
licence. The persons, whose names were enlisted, have submitted
the certificate from the Chartered Accountant with regard to
overall turnover and turnover of the watermelon seeds and their
FSSAI licences are non-indicative of separate processing capacity
for watermelon seeds. They were similarly fulfilling the conditions
like the petitioners and they were selected in the provisional list.
Therefore, rejection of the petitioners' claim for consideration of
70% weightage basing on the processing capacity was not
correctly done. Though they may not have been entitled for 30%
weightage on account of lack of material showing the importation
of watermelon seeds for three consecutive years, their claim for
licence of import cannot be completely rejected, at least, they fall
under the 70% weightage and they could not have some quantity
of the seeds in proportionate to the number of candidates applied
for importation. In this regard, action of the respondents for non-
[2025:RJ-JD:9048] (15 of 17) [CW-9155/2023]
inclusion of the petitioners is required to be declared
unsustainable.
20) The fact remains that the Policy was in force upto 31 st
October, 2023. For one reason or another, the matters could not
be taken up before the Policy period was expired. Once Policy
period expired, even though the action of the respondents were
found to be unsustainable in not including the petitioners in the
provisional list, however, no direction can be granted to the
respondents to re-frame policy by extending the cut-off date for
importation. Therefore, no such relief can be granted to the
petitioners even they are able to establish that they are eligible to
be included in the provisional list for the quantity proportionate to
their entitlement basing on the weightage.
21) Similarly, the petitioner whose name was found in the
second provisional list but for delay and on account of the
intervening circumstance of stay, though he was eligible for
importation within the Policy period, is deprived on account of
unfair treatment by the respondents vis-a-vis 217 candidates. On
account of unfair treatment due to the delay in verifying the
credentials of processing capacity and the intervening
circumstances intervened thereby, the respondents were unable to
process for grant of import licence on account of interim orders
passed by this Court. In the similar line, the petitioner is though
successful in demonstrating his entitlement under the Policy,
however, no direction can be issued to the respondents to re-
frame the policy by extending the condition of policy. Therefore,
such relief cannot be granted.
[2025:RJ-JD:9048] (16 of 17) [CW-9155/2023]
22) In S.B.Civil Writ Petition Nos. 9158/2023, 9159/2023,
9162/2023 and 9164/2023, the petitioners, who are seeking
more quantity than allotted quantity though they were claiming
for more quantity, but they are not able to demonstrate how they
are entitled for more quantity than allotted quantity and the
contention of learned ASG clearly indicates that the quantity has
been allotted basing on the actual user basis processing capacity.
There is no clear ground in the entire writ petitions indicating how
they are entitled for more quantity. They have only relied upon
quantities mentioned in C.A. report and they are not able to give
any clear indication about actual processing capacity. Further, the
petitioners have not impleaded other allotees of provisional list
No.I as party-respondents in the writ petition, even though they
are affected parties if any variations in the quantities are to be
considered. Therefore, the prayer for seeking extra allotment
cannot be well sustained and the same is rejected.
23) The other fact is that in the subsequent policy, which has
come into force from 05.04.2024 and valid upto 30.04.2024, the
free importation was allowed. The aggrieved persons, who have
been deprived of impugned policy, could have availed the benefit
of free importation to set off the loss caused to them. Some of the
petitioners seem to have availed.
24) The contention of the petitioners' in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
Nos.2502/2024, 9155/2023, 9119/2023, 9156/2023, 9157/2023,
9160/2023, 9161/2023, 9163/2023, 9166/2023 & 7747/2024 is that
at least, the respondents may be directed to refund the licence
fee. Since the Import Policy do not allow them to return the
licence fee because the fee was only for processing. In spite of
[2025:RJ-JD:9048] (17 of 17) [CW-9155/2023]
their success in demonstrating their entitlement under the Policy,
if no relief is granted at least they cannot be deprived of getting
back their licence fee. If the licence fee is not returned, there
would be double penalty for no fault of the petitioners. In the said
circumstances, this Court finds justification in the claim made by
the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners demonstrate that they
were entitled to importation under the said Policy but for unfair
action of the respondents, they lost opportunities to import and
the action of the respondents found to be at fault. If such is a
case, the petitioners cannot be double penalized on the one hand
by not allowing the importation though entitled and on the other
hand by forfeiting their licence fee. Therefore, the aforesaid
petitioners are held to be entitled for the licence fee, even though
import Policy do not allow the respondents to refund the same.
25) In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petitions are
disposed of as follows:-
(i) The prayer to quash the Public Notices dated
08.06.2023, 14.02.2024 and 09.04.2024 is
dismissed;
(ii) The respondents are directed to refund the
licence fee to the petitioners except petitioners in
SBCWP Nos.9158/2023, 9159/2023, 9162/2023 and
9164/2023.
26) In the circumstances, no order as to costs.
27) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
107 to 119 & 133-NK/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
