Promissory estoppel cannot freeze export control policy when statutory power and overriding public interest justify change.

Promissory estoppel could not restrain the Government from changing export control policy because the export control orders were legislative in character and the accompanying notices and handbook guidelines remained subject to alteration in overriding public interest, including conservation of silver and export regulation. The challenge therefore failed. The petitioners also did not prove firm, irrevocable pre-control commitments under the Handbook of Import-Export Procedures, as the alleged contracts had been extended and varied and the handbook created no enforceable right to an export licence or permission. No relief was available on that basis either, and the writ petitions were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether promissory estoppel could be invoked to prevent the Government from changing export control policy and applying amended export control orders and guidelines. (ii) Whether the petitioners' contracts constituted protected pre-control commitments under the Hand Book of Import-Export Procedures.

Issue (i): Whether promissory estoppel could be invoked to prevent the Government from changing export control policy and applying amended export control orders and guidelines.

Analysis: The export control orders issued under section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 were treated as legislative in character, and the doctrine of promissory estoppel was held inapplicable against statutory power. The accompanying public notices and handbook guidelines were administrative in nature, but the Court held that the Government could alter them when public interest required, particularly where the record showed a need to conserve silver and regulate exports in the national interest. Promissory estoppel was held to yield to overriding public interest and could not be used to freeze policy or prevent the exercise of statutory power.

Conclusion: Promissory estoppel was not available to restrain the Government, and the challenge to the changed export policy failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners' contracts constituted protected pre-control commitments under the Hand Book of Import-Export Procedures.

Analysis: The Court held that the alleged contracts were not firm, irrevocable, or genuinely concluded commitments within the meaning of the handbook provisions. The contractual terms had been extended and varied from time to time, and the handbook itself stated that the guidelines conferred no enforceable right to an export licence or permission. On that footing, the petitioners did not satisfy the requirement of a pre-control commitment capable of protection under the relevant handbook paragraph.

Conclusion: The contracts were not protected pre-control commitments, so no relief could be granted on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were dismissed because the Government's export control changes were valid exercises of statutory and administrative power, and the petitioners failed to establish an enforceable right under the handbook provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: Promissory estoppel cannot be used to defeat a change in legislative or statutory export control policy, and it will not operate where the Government shows that the change was made in overriding public interest.

---