Foreign trade policy and PIL limits bar writ relief against mandatory procedure and policy-based import conditions.

Writ jurisdiction cannot be used to compel the Union and the DGFT to impose pre-import and actual user conditions by public notice contrary to the notified foreign trade framework. The Court treated the Handbook of Procedure requirements, including data and information for review of Standard Input Output Norms, as binding elements of the scheme rather than dispensable formalities, and rejected the request to declare the relevant procedure non-mandatory. The petition also failed as a PIL because the record did not show genuine public interest or sufficient bona fides. Judicial intervention in the policy and procedural choices governing foreign trade was therefore declined.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a writ court could direct the Union of India and the DGFT to empower or authorise imposition of pre-import and actual user conditions by public notice, and to declare the relevant procedure under the Foreign Trade Policy and Handbook of Procedure as non-mandatory; (ii) whether the petition could be entertained as a public interest litigation in the absence of demonstrable public interest and bona fides.

Issue (i): whether a writ court could direct the Union of India and the DGFT to empower or authorise imposition of pre-import and actual user conditions by public notice, and to declare the relevant procedure under the Foreign Trade Policy and Handbook of Procedure as non-mandatory.

Analysis: The reliefs sought would require the Court to interfere with policy choices governing foreign trade and to compel action contrary to the statutory and policy framework. The power to impose pre-import conditions and to prescribe actual user conditions was held to lie within the notified policy and the competent authority's framework, not by judicial substitution. The prescribed procedure under the Handbook of Procedure, including the requirement of data and information for review of Standard Input Output Norms, was treated as part of the binding scheme and not as a dispensable formality.

Conclusion: The prayer for a mandamus to empower or authorise such conditions, and the prayer to declare paragraph 4.25 non-mandatory, were rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the petition could be entertained as a public interest litigation in the absence of demonstrable public interest and bona fides.

Analysis: The petitioner's assertions and the material produced did not establish a genuine public interest or sufficient bona fides for PIL scrutiny. The Court treated the challenge as an attempt to seek judicial relaxation of policy and procedure in a fiscal field, which was held to be beyond the proper scope of writ intervention.

Conclusion: The petition was not found maintainable as a bona fide PIL.

Final Conclusion: Judicial interference was declined in respect of the foreign trade policy measures and the PIL challenge, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In matters governed by statutory policy and prescribed procedure, a writ court will not issue mandamus to compel action contrary to the notified framework, and PIL jurisdiction cannot be used to seek policy relaxation without bona fide public interest.

---