Foreign exchange control limited ice-show permission; promissory estoppel, natural justice, and contempt claims all failed.

Permission for a non-resident's ice-shows was upheld as subject to foreign exchange control policy, and the refusal did not violate Article 19(1)(g) because the restriction was treated as reasonable and in public interest. The original permission was construed as limited to the first round of shows, not as a perpetual authorisation. Promissory estoppel failed because no clear and unequivocal promise of continuing permission was shown, nor was any detrimental reliance traced to such a promise. The absence of a fresh show-cause notice did not vitiate the refusal since the decisive grounds were already disclosed and a further hearing would have been futile. The contempt allegation also failed for want of wilful disobedience.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether refusal of permission to hold the ice-shows violated the petitioner's right to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the original permission granted by the Reserve Bank was unlimited in duration or was confined to a limited period; (iii) whether the Reserve Bank was bound by promissory estoppel to continue the permission for further shows; (iv) whether the refusal of permission was vitiated for want of a prior show-cause notice and breach of natural justice; and (v) whether the petitioner was guilty of contempt by holding the Madras shows during the pendency of the writ petition.

Issue (i): whether refusal of permission to hold the ice-shows violated the petitioner's right to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Permission for trading or business by a non-resident in India was subject to control under the foreign exchange regime. The restriction was based on administrative instructions aimed at conserving foreign exchange and preventing entertainment activities that could adversely affect the foreign exchange position. Such a policy was treated as reasonable and in public interest.

Conclusion: The restriction did not violate Article 19(1)(g); the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): whether the original permission granted by the Reserve Bank was unlimited in duration or was confined to a limited period.

Analysis: Although no express time-limit was stated, the surrounding communications and the petitioner's own representations showed that the permission was intended for a specific period covering the first round of shows. A perpetual permission could not be assumed from the absence of an express limit.

Conclusion: The permission was limited in time and did not extend beyond the first set of shows; the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (iii): whether the Reserve Bank was bound by promissory estoppel to continue the permission for further shows.

Analysis: The doctrine required a clear and unequivocal promise and a detrimental change of position caused by that promise. The petitioner could not establish a promise of continuing permission, and any subsequent expenditure for later shows was not referable to an assured representation by the Reserve Bank.

Conclusion: Promissory estoppel was not attracted; the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (iv): whether the refusal of permission was vitiated for want of a prior show-cause notice and breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The grounds for refusal were already disclosed in the counter-affidavit and the governing administrative instructions. A remand for a further notice would have been futile because the Reserve Bank was bound by those instructions and could not take a contrary view.

Conclusion: The absence of a fresh show-cause notice did not vitiate the refusal; the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (v): whether the petitioner was guilty of contempt by holding the Madras shows during the pendency of the writ petition.

Analysis: There was no prohibitory order restraining the petitioner from conducting the shows, and the shows in question were held before the writ petition was finally decided. In the circumstances, no wilful disobedience was established.

Conclusion: The contempt allegation failed; the issue was decided against the respondent in the contempt petition.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the refusal of permission failed, and the contempt proceedings also did not succeed, leaving the administrative action intact.

Ratio Decidendi: Permission under the foreign exchange control regime can be limited by context and administrative policy, promissory estoppel requires a clear promise and causative detriment, and a further hearing is unnecessary where the decisive grounds are already disclosed and remand would be futile.

---