Writ jurisdiction over export body upheld where membership rules conflicted with policy and equal treatment principles.

An export promotion body incorporated as a company may still be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where it performs public functions, implements export policy, and controls access to export entitlements. The availability of a Companies Act remedy before the Company Law Board does not bar writ relief where the challenge is to the validity of the membership regulations themselves and the statutory remedy is inadequate. Regulations creating separate classes of registered exporters and member exporters were found inconsistent with the Export and Import Policy and unconstitutional because they imposed an additional eligibility threshold, excluded registered exporters from voting and membership, and lacked a rational nexus with the policy objective of democratised membership and elections.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the export promotion body, though incorporated as a company, was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226; (ii) whether the remedy before the Company Law Board under the Companies Act barred the writ petition; and (iii) whether the membership regulations creating separate classes of registered exporters and member exporters were valid under the Export and Import Policy and the Constitution.

Issue (i): whether the export promotion body, though incorporated as a company, was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Analysis: The body discharged a public function in implementing the export policy, controlled access to export entitlements, and acted under a statutory policy framework. A private body performing public duties can be proceeded against under Article 226 even if it is not State within Article 12.

Conclusion: The body was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, and the objection to maintainability failed.

Issue (ii): whether the remedy before the Company Law Board under the Companies Act barred the writ petition.

Analysis: The challenge was not to an isolated membership entry dispute but to the validity of the membership regulations themselves. The relief sought could not be effectively granted in a petition under the limited company-law remedy invoked by the respondent.

Conclusion: The alternative-remedy objection was rejected, and the writ petition remained maintainable.

Issue (iii): whether the membership regulations creating separate classes of registered exporters and member exporters were valid under the Export and Import Policy and the Constitution.

Analysis: The Export and Import Policy contemplated registration followed by membership of the export promotion council, and government support was linked to democratisation of membership and democratic elections. The regulations introduced an additional eligibility threshold not found in the policy, excluded a large class of registered exporters from voting and membership, and created a classification without nexus to the policy objective. The regulations were inconsistent with the policy and offended equality and the right to carry on trade.

Conclusion: The impugned membership regulations were held to be ultra vires the policy and unconstitutional.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded. The impugned membership restrictions were struck down to the extent of inconsistency with the governing export policy, and the petition was allowed with prospective effect and costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A body created to implement a statutory export policy cannot, through its articles or regulations, impose membership restrictions inconsistent with that policy, particularly where the policy links governmental support to democratisation of membership and democratic elections.

---