Export ban refusals must consider existing contracts fairly; non-arbitrary denial without reasons can be quashed.

A policy ban on skimmed milk powder exports remained valid, but where the authorities had reserved case-by-case consideration of existing export commitments, the refusal had to address concluded contracts and placed materials fairly and rationally. The impugned order was found unsustainable because it did not examine the petitioner's accrued obligations, gave no rational basis for denying limited permission, and failed the standards of non-arbitrariness and legitimate expectation in governmental policy change. The refusal was quashed and the request was directed to be reconsidered afresh in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order refusing permission to discharge existing export commitments under the export ban on skimmed milk powder was arbitrary and liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The notification imposing the export ban was treated as valid in principle, but the authorities had expressly reserved power to consider existing export obligations on a case-by-case basis. The impugned order failed to examine the petitioner's concluded contracts and existing commitments in that light, ignored the materials placed before it, and did not disclose any rational basis for denying limited permission. The decision had to conform to fairness, non-arbitrariness, legitimate expectation, and the limited operation of promissory estoppel in the context of governmental policy changes affecting accrued contractual rights.

Conclusion: The refusal order was unsustainable and was quashed. The authority was directed to reconsider the petitioner's request afresh in accordance with law and the Court's observations.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was resolved in favour of the petitioner to the extent of setting aside the rejection and requiring fresh consideration of the existing export commitments.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a policy change expressly preserves case-by-case consideration of existing obligations, the resulting administrative decision must be reasoned, fair, and non-arbitrary; failure to assess concluded rights in that manner renders the refusal vulnerable to judicial review.

---