Conditional relaxation under foreign trade policy may be granted on terms, and reasoned orders can withstand writ scrutiny.

Conditional relaxation under the foreign trade policy is not available as an enforceable right, and authorities may grant clubbing of advance authorisations on terms imposed in public interest after case-specific consideration. The Bombay HC upheld the restriction that export obligation under the clubbed authorisations had to be fulfilled within 48 months from the earliest authorisation, finding it a permissible condition attached to relief and not arbitrary. The Court also found no breach of natural justice or absence of reasons, noting that the written representations were considered, reasons were recorded, and no prejudice from the absence of an oral hearing was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the condition imposed while allowing clubbing of advance authorisations, restricting export obligation fulfilment to exports made within 48 months from the date of the earliest authorisation, was arbitrary or liable to be quashed; (ii) Whether the impugned orders were vitiated for breach of natural justice or absence of reasons.

Issue (i): Whether the condition imposed while allowing clubbing of advance authorisations, restricting export obligation fulfilment to exports made within 48 months from the date of the earliest authorisation, was arbitrary or liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The relaxation power under the foreign trade policy is discretionary and is exercised on a case-to-case basis in public interest. A person in default cannot claim unconditional relaxation as of right. The Committee had already granted clubbing for closure purposes and imposed the impugned restriction after considering the petitioners' default, the effective time available for compliance, and the need to preserve the policy framework. The condition was treated as a permissible term attached to conditional relaxation, not as an arbitrary denial of relief.

Conclusion: The condition was held to be valid and the challenge to it failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned orders were vitiated for breach of natural justice or absence of reasons.

Analysis: The record showed consideration of the written representations and reasoned decisions by the authorities. The Court held that sufficiency of reasons is not open to interference in writ jurisdiction where reasons are disclosed. On the facts, no prejudice was established from the absence of an oral hearing, and the proceedings did not warrant a mandatory personal hearing in the manner suggested by the petitioners.

Conclusion: No breach of natural justice was found and the challenge on this ground failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was found to lack merit and the impugned actions of the authorities were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Conditional relaxation under the foreign trade policy is not enforceable as of right and may validly be granted on terms imposed in public interest after reasoned, case-specific consideration.

---