Government's Fair Implementation of Import Policy Upheld; Petition Dismissed Due to Lack of Merit

The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the Government acted fairly in implementing the Import Policy. The petitioners' claims of unfair treatment and procedural lapses were unfounded, with the court finding that the Government's decisions were justified based on technical advice. The court concluded that the petitioners' actions were aimed at preventing competition rather than genuine concerns, leading to the dismissal of the petition with costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Fairness in implementing the Import Policy.
2. Compliance with the procedure for import of Capital Goods.
3. Validity of the Government's decision to grant import licenses.
4. Allegations of suppression of facts and unfair competition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Fairness in implementing the Import Policy:

The primary issue was whether Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 acted fairly in implementing the Import Policy as outlined in the Hand Book of Import-Export Procedures, 1980-81. The court noted that the petitioners argued that the policy was framed to encourage indigenous manufacturers and prevent the drain on foreign exchange. The petitioners contended that the Government overlooked their claim and granted the import license to Respondent No. 3 unfairly. However, the court found that the Government acted fairly, considering the technical advice and the clearance from the Directorate General of Technical Development (DGTD) and the Capital Goods (CG) Committee. The court emphasized that the grant of an import license is an administrative action and does not require a quasi-judicial process involving a full-fledged hearing and a reasoned order.

2. Compliance with the procedure for import of Capital Goods:

The petitioners claimed that Respondent No. 3 did not follow the procedure outlined in the Import Policy, specifically the requirement to advertise the need for Capital Goods exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs in Trade Journals to allow indigenous manufacturers to respond. The court noted that Respondent No. 3 initially filed an application for an import license before the expiry of 45 days from the advertisement date, which was not considered. However, a fresh application was filed on April 22, 1981, after the 45-day period, and the reasons for rejecting the petitioners' offer were stated. The court found no procedural lapse in this regard.

3. Validity of the Government's decision to grant import licenses:

The petitioners argued that the Government's decision to grant import licenses to Respondent No. 3 was influenced by unfair considerations and that the Government did not communicate the grounds for rejection of the petitioners' offer. The court held that the Government's decision was based on technical advice and the clearance from DGTD and the CG Committee. The court also noted that the petitioners themselves had applied for an import license for two machines in April 1981, which undermined their claim of being able to manufacture those machines indigenously. The court concluded that the Government's decision was justified and did not require further communication or personal hearing.

4. Allegations of suppression of facts and unfair competition:

Respondent No. 3 alleged that the petitioners were guilty of suppressing relevant facts and that their claim to manufacture the required machinery was false and frivolous. The court observed that the petitioners' efforts were aimed at preventing Respondent No. 3 from commencing their plant and entering the market as a competitor. The court found that the Government had acted fairly in considering the claims and representations from both parties and that the petitioners' allegations were without substance.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the petition, finding that the Government had acted fairly and in accordance with the Import Policy. The petitioners' claims of unfair treatment and procedural lapses were not substantiated, and the court concluded that the petitioners' primary motive was to prevent competition from Respondent No. 3. The rule was discharged with costs.

---