Writ review of licence revalidation is limited where binding policy conditions are unmet and rejection rests on executive instructions.

Authorities were justified in refusing further revalidation of advance licences where the applicant had already received extensions up to 30 months and failed to comply with the revised input condition under the governing circular. The later foreign trade policy and handbook provisions did not create a right to revalidation on these facts. Because the rejection rested on binding executive instructions and specialised policy decisions, the writ court should not substitute its own view in judicial review. The refusal to revalidate the licences was therefore upheld and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the authorities were justified in refusing revalidation of the advance licences for non-compliance with the revised input condition and whether the writ court could interfere with the policy-based rejection orders.

Analysis: The licences had already been extended up to 30 months and the competent committees found no basis for further revalidation. The governing circular required reduction of vitamin mixes from 227 kg to 27 kg, but that condition was not accepted or complied with. The Court also noted that the subsequent foreign trade policy and handbook provisions did not confer a right to revalidation in the facts of the case. Since the rejection was founded on executive instructions and policy decisions taken by specialised authorities, the writ court ought not to have substituted its view in judicial review.

Conclusion: The refusal to revalidate the licences was held to be justified, and the challenge to the rejection orders failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will not ordinarily interfere with a policy-based refusal to revalidate licences where the rejection is founded on binding executive instructions and the applicant has not complied with the stipulated conditions.

---