SEZ import permissions barred where prior Supreme Court order fixed petroleum coke limits and rejected enhancement requests.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a writ petition seeking permission to import Calcined Petroleum Coke and Raw Petroleum Coke into an SEZ for manufacturing, blending and re-export could not be maintained where the Supreme Court had already fixed outer import limits and rejected enhancement requests covering the same commodities and use. The Court accepted that the earlier applications had expressly sought higher limits for the SEZ unit, so the argument that the rejection orders showed non-application of mind failed. On that basis, materially identical relief could not be granted by recasting the request as SEZ-based import permission, and the challenge to the rejection of the representations was unsuccessful.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to a mandamus permitting import of Calcined Petroleum Coke and Raw Petroleum Coke into a Special Economic Zone for manufacturing, blending and re-export, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's earlier order fixing import limits and rejecting enhancement requests.

Analysis: The petitioners' request rested on the assertion that the Supreme Court had not specifically considered imports into a Special Economic Zone. However, the materials placed before the Court showed that the earlier applications had expressly sought enhancement of the import limits for RPC and CPC for use at the SEZ unit. Those applications were dismissed by the Supreme Court on the ground that the outer limits fixed earlier could not be exceeded and that the enhancement prayers were misconceived. In that background, the contention that the impugned rejection orders suffered from non-application of mind did not survive. The earlier dismissal effectively covered the very reliefs sought in the writ petitions.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable for the relief claimed and the prayer for permission to import CPC/RPC into the SEZ was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the rejection of the representations failed because the claimed import permissions were inconsistent with the Supreme Court's earlier determination on permissible import limits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Supreme Court has already fixed import limits and rejected a subsequent request for enhancement covering the same commodity and use, a writ court cannot grant materially identical relief by recasting the request as one for SEZ-based import and re-export.

---