Export policy revision upheld where no vested right existed and parity failed due to different export-stage facts.

Export policy changes made in public interest are within executive competence, and judicial review is limited where no illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety is shown. A trader has no vested or accrued right to insist on continuation of an earlier export regime, so a ban on maize exports was not liable to interference on grounds of arbitrariness or violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). Parity was also denied because exporters permitted under a later notification were not similarly situated: they had reached later stages of the export process, while the petitioner remained at an earlier stage with no cargo examined or under customs custody.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notification prohibiting export of maize was liable to be interfered with on the grounds of arbitrariness, discrimination, and violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether the petitioner could claim parity with exporters who were permitted to export under the later notification dated 05-07-2008 on the basis of the Foreign Trade Policy and the Handbook of Procedures.

Issue (i): Whether the notification prohibiting export of maize was liable to be interfered with on the grounds of arbitrariness, discrimination, and violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The prohibition was issued under the statutory power of the Central Government to regulate export policy in public interest. The change in export policy was treated as a matter falling within executive competence, and judicial review in such policy matters was held to be limited. The petitioner had no vested or accrued right to insist on continuation of the earlier policy. The Court found no illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety in the impugned policy decision.

Conclusion: The challenge to the prohibition notification failed and was held not to violate Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner could claim parity with exporters who were permitted to export under the later notification dated 05-07-2008 on the basis of the Foreign Trade Policy and the Handbook of Procedures.

Analysis: The Court held that the petitioner was not similarly situated to the exporters who received permission. Those exporters had already crossed later stages of the export process, such as issuance of Let Export Order or partial loading with shipping bills pending, whereas the petitioner remained at the preliminary stage with only shipping bills submitted and no cargo examined or brought under customs custody. Equality under Article 14 applies only to persons similarly situated, and the factual distinction justified differential treatment. The transitional arrangement in the policy and the procedural rule regarding consignments already handed over to customs did not assist the petitioner.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to claim parity or discriminatory treatment on the basis of the later permission granted to other exporters.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were not fit for interference, as the maize export ban and the limited relaxation granted to certain exporters were sustained on the facts and within the policy domain of the Government.

Ratio Decidendi: In matters of export policy, the Government may revise or withdraw concessions in public interest, and Article 14 is not violated where differential treatment is based on material factual distinctions between persons at different stages of the export process.

---