Import regulation for poppy seeds sustained where no manifest arbitrariness, discrimination, or lack of statutory power was shown.

The Bombay High Court upheld import-regulating guidelines for poppy seeds, including country caps, contract registration and quantitative limits, holding that importers had no fundamental right to import free from regulation. The Court found the scheme supported by the narcotics and foreign trade framework, which permits control and quantitative restriction of imports, and by the objective of preventing cartelisation, artificial blocking of country caps and exclusion of non-genuine importers. Mere preference for the earlier lottery system, without evidence of manifest arbitrariness, invidious discrimination or lack of statutory authority, was insufficient to invalidate the policy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned guidelines regulating import of poppy seeds, including country caps, registration of sales contracts, and quantitative limits, were arbitrary, discriminatory, or otherwise liable to be struck down.

Analysis: The petitioners had no fundamental right to import poppy seeds free from regulation. The challenge therefore had to establish manifest arbitrariness, invidious discrimination, or absence of nexus with the regulatory object. The guidelines were issued in the context of the statutory scheme under the narcotics law and the foreign trade law, both of which confer power to control, regulate, and impose quantitative restrictions on imports. The impugned regime was also traceable to inter-governmental arrangements and was designed to channel imports through a regulated process, prevent cartelization and artificial blocking of country caps, and ensure that only genuine importers participate. The mere preference for the earlier lottery system, or dissatisfaction with the new policy, was insufficient to invalidate the notification in the absence of supporting data or legal infirmity.

Conclusion: The guidelines were upheld. The challenge failed because the petitioners did not establish any patent arbitrariness, invidious discrimination, or lack of statutory authority.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned import-regulating guidelines were sustained as a valid exercise of regulatory power in the public interest.

Ratio Decidendi: A regulatory import policy will not be struck down merely because importers prefer an earlier or less restrictive regime; absent manifest arbitrariness, invidious discrimination, or want of statutory power, the Court will not substitute its view for a bona fide policy choice made in the public interest.

---