Bombay High Court Quashes Policy Circular in Export Promotion Case — Circular Held Ultra Vires Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. Court ruled that the policy circular dated 28.2.2006 imposing additional conditions for export benefits was beyond the scope of delegated legislation and violated principles of natural justice.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, Jindal Drugs Limited and others, filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a policy circular dated 28.2.2006 issued by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade. The circular imposed additional conditions for availing export benefits under the Foreign Trade Policy. The petitioners argued that the circular was ultra vires the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Foreign Trade Policy, and that it violated principles of natural justice as it was issued without any prior notice or hearing. The respondents, Union of India and others, defended the circular as a valid exercise of delegated power. The court analyzed the scope of delegated legislation under the Act and found that the circular went beyond the framework of the Act and the Policy. The court held that the circular was ultra vires and also violated the principles of natural justice by affecting the rights of exporters without affording them an opportunity to be heard. The court quashed the circular and allowed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Delegated Legislation - Ultra Vires - Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 - Policy circular imposing additional conditions for export benefits held ultra vires as it exceeded the scope of delegated legislation and was not in conformity with the parent Act and the Foreign Trade Policy (Paras 2-10).

B) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Legitimate Expectation - Policy circular issued without prior notice or hearing violates principles of natural justice and defeats legitimate expectation of exporters (Paras 11-15).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the policy circular dated 28.2.2006 issued by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade is ultra vires the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Foreign Trade Policy, and whether it violates principles of natural justice.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court quashed the policy circular dated 28.2.2006 and allowed the writ petitions with no order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Delegated legislation
  • Ultra vires
  • Natural justice
  • Foreign Trade Policy
  • Export promotion
  • Legitimate expectation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2010 LawText (BOM) (09) 22

Writ Petition No. 2221 of 2007, Writ Petition No. 1665 of 2006, Writ Petition No. 1175 of 2007

2010-09-15

V.C. Daga, R.M. Savant

2010:BHC-OS:10642-DB

Prakash Shah, Virendra Tulzapurkar, Nikhil Sakhardande, G.N. Srinivasan, G. Hariharan, A.S. Rao, P.S. Jetly

Jindal Drugs Limited, Krishan Jindal, Vijay Jindal, Everest Flavours Limited

Union of India, Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade, Foreign Trade Development Officer

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a policy circular.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of the policy circular dated 28.2.2006 issued by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade.

Filing Reason

The policy circular imposed additional conditions for export benefits which were alleged to be ultra vires the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and violative of natural justice.

Issues

Whether the policy circular dated 28.2.2006 is ultra vires the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Foreign Trade Policy? Whether the policy circular violates principles of natural justice?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the circular was beyond the scope of delegated legislation and violated legitimate expectation. Respondents argued that the circular was a valid exercise of delegated power under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

A policy circular issued under delegated legislation must conform to the parent Act and cannot impose conditions beyond the framework of the Act. Additionally, any executive action affecting rights must comply with principles of natural justice.

Judgment Excerpts

By way of the above writ petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioners inter alia lay a challenge to the policy circular dated 28.2.2006 issued by Respondent...

Acts & Sections

  • Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992:
  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Policy Circular in Export Promotion Case — Circular Held Ultra Vires Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. Court ruled that the policy circular dated 28.2.2006 imposing additional conditions for export bene...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court at Goa Dismisses Appeal for Enhanced Compensation in Land Acquisition Case — Market Value Fixed at Rs.7 per sq.metre Based on Lack of Comparable Sales Evidence. Reference Court's rejection of claim for Rs.300 per sq.metre upheld a...