Court dismisses application for RPC import quota allocation, citing impermissible challenge to assessment criteria through Public Notice.

The court dismissed the application seeking directions for RPC import quota allocation, emphasizing that challenging assessment criteria through a Public Notice was not permissible via a writ petition. The judgment highlighted the need for consistency in relief sought and refrained from discussing the maintainability issue due to the pending nature of a previous application.

---

---

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the application seeking directions for RPC import quota allocation.
2. Consistency of relief sought in the current application and a prior application.
3. Validity of the Public Notice dated 17.04.2020 in relation to production capacity assessment.

Issue 1: Maintainability of the Application:
The petitioners filed an application seeking directions for the allocation of RPC import quota based on their production capacity. The respondents argued that the relief sought was previously denied by the Supreme Court, deeming the current application an abuse of the court process. The petitioners contended that their capacity to produce RPC was higher than assessed, supported by documents. The court noted that the pending application from the same petitioners made the maintainability of the current application questionable. However, the court did not delve into the maintainability issue due to the pending nature of the previous application.

Issue 2: Consistency of Relief Sought:
The petitioners' current application mirrored the relief sought in a prior application, both concerning the allocation of RPC for the fiscal year 2020-21. The respondents argued that the issuance of a Public Notice did not warrant a fresh cause of action for the petitioners. The petitioners contended that their production capacity had been consistently misrepresented, and the allocation should reflect the actual capacity. The court highlighted that the relief sought in the current application was similar to the pending application, questioning the necessity of a separate plea for the same relief.

Issue 3: Validity of Public Notice and Production Capacity Assessment:
The petitioners challenged the production capacity assessment based on the Public Notice issued on 17.04.2020. They argued that their capacity was established before the specified date, contrary to the assessment criteria. The court noted that challenging the assessment through the Public Notice was an attempt to alter the conditions for future allocation decisions. It emphasized that such variations could not be entertained through a writ petition challenging a prior decision. The court dismissed the application, clarifying that it did not opine on the maintainability of the writ petition and the pending application.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the application, emphasizing that challenging assessment criteria through a Public Notice was not permissible via a writ petition. The judgment underscored the need for consistency in relief sought and refrained from discussing the maintainability issue due to the pending nature of a previous application.

---