Case Note & Summary
The present group of petitions was filed by Messrs Polyrec Processors Pvt. Ltd. and another against the Union of India and others, challenging orders passed by the respondent authorities under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (Sections 11 and 13), the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (Sections 15 and 2(m)), and the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006 (Rule 54). The petitioners invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Gujarat High Court under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 226, 227, 265, and 300A of the Constitution of India. The court heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioners' counsel, Mr. Dave, argued that the impugned orders were illegal, unjust, arbitrary, and contrary to the facts and law. During the pendency of the proceedings, a significant development occurred: the amendment of Rule 80 of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006. In light of this amendment, the court found that the subject matter of the petitions had become infructuous. Consequently, the court allowed the petitions, quashed and set aside the impugned orders, and disposed of all connected matters. Rule was made absolute to that extent. No order as to costs was passed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 226, 227, 265, 300A of the Constitution of India - Challenge to orders under Foreign Trade Act and SEZ Act - Petitioners challenged orders passed by authorities under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, read with the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006. The court considered the impact of the amendment to Rule 80 of the SEZ Rules, 2006, which rendered the proceedings infructuous. Held that the petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are quashed and set aside in light of the amendment (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 are sustainable in light of the amendment to Rule 80 of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petitions, quashed and set aside the impugned orders, and disposed of all connected matters. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Constitutional validity of orders under Foreign Trade Act
- SEZ Act
- SEZ Rules
- Amendment of Rule 80
- Doctrine of infructuous proceedings
Case Details
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1005 of 2021 and connected matters
Amal Paresh Dave, Paresh M. Dave for Petitioners; Ankit Shah for Respondents
Messrs Polyrec Processors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 226, 227, 265, 300A of the Constitution of India challenging orders passed by respondent authorities under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing and setting aside of the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities.
Filing Reason
Petitioners challenged the impugned orders as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, and contrary to facts and law.
Issues
Whether the impugned orders are sustainable in light of the amendment to Rule 80 of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the impugned orders are illegal, unjust, arbitrary, erroneous, and contrary to the facts and law.
During pendency, amendment of Rule 80 of SEZ Rules, 2006 occurred, rendering proceedings infructuous.
Ratio Decidendi
The amendment of Rule 80 of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006 during the pendency of the petitions rendered the subject matter infructuous, warranting quashing of the impugned orders.
Judgment Excerpts
Present group of petitions is arising out of the same issue and therefore, all these petitions are decided by this common judgment.
Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that impugned orders passed by the respondent - authorities are illegal, unjust, arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the facts and material on record and the provisions of the Act and the Rules and therefore, are required to be quashed and set aside.
He has submitted that during the pendency of the present proceedings, certain development took place more particularly in view of the amended provision of Rule 80 of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006, which came into force.
Procedural History
Petitions filed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 226, 227, 265, 300A of the Constitution of India read with Foreign Trade Act, SEZ Act, and SEZ Rules challenging impugned orders. Heard counsel. During pendency, Rule 80 of SEZ Rules, 2006 was amended. Court allowed petitions and quashed orders.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 226, 227, 265, 300A
- Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992: Sections 11, 13
- Special Economic Zones Act, 2005: Sections 15, 2(m)
- Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006: Rule 54, Rule 80
