Supreme Court Allows Imports Despite Cut-off Date Concerns

The Supreme Court allowed the respondent(s) to file applications for registration of sales contracts for importing poppy seeds from China and Turkey, despite concerns about the cut-off date. This relaxation was granted under Article 142 powers, limited to this case. The Court criticized the High Court for departing from policy but did not delve into the judgment's correctness. Special leave petitions were disposed of, with pending applications also resolved.

---

---

Issues:
Import guidelines for poppy seeds from China and Turkey, application for registration, cut-off date for filing applications, relaxation of deadline, exercise of plenary powers under Article 142, correctness of the judgment under challenge, departure from policy by High Court.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court considered the import guidelines for poppy seeds from China and Turkey. The petitioners highlighted the revised guidelines for import of poppy seeds from China, approved by the competent authority and communicated to the Central Bureau of Narcotics. A specific Public Notice was issued inviting applications for registration of sales contracts for importing poppy seeds from China. Similar notifications were issued for poppy seeds from Turkey in the same year. The respondent(s) were advised to avail the benefits of these notifications and apply for registration.

The respondent(s) expressed willingness to accept the proposal but raised concerns about the cut-off date for filing applications possibly having passed. To address this, the Court directed the petitioners to accept applications from the respondent(s) within one week from the date of the order. This relaxation was limited to the respondent(s) in the present case and was not to set a precedent for other cases, being an exercise of plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

The Court decided to dispose of the special leave petitions without delving into the correctness of the judgment under challenge. However, it criticized the High Court for departing from the prevailing policy, particularly in paragraph 20 of the impugned judgment. The Supreme Court explicitly stated its disapproval of this departure from policy. The Court concluded by disposing of the special leave petitions and also disposing of any pending applications.

---