TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 1221
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....E R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO For The Petitioner : M Karthik Pavan Kumar, For The Respondent : Deputy Solicitor General Of India, Suresh Kumar Routhu RRR, J As the issues raised in all the three Writ Petitions are the same with minor variations of facts, it would be appropriate to pass interim directions in all the three cases, by common order. The Union of India, which is the 1st respondent, had initially allowed export of broken rice outside the India. Subsequently, in the year 2007 the Director General of Foreign Trade-2nd respondent had issued a notification dated 15.10.2007 withdrawing the permission for export of non-basmati rice. This ban was challenged by way of various Writ Petitions before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and iii. where broken rice consignment has been handed over to the Customs before this Notification and is registered in their system. Aggrieved by the said notification, the petitioners in these Writ Petitions have approached this Court. Heard, Sri S. Srinivasa Reddy, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri M. Karthik Pavan Kumar learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.32049 of 2022, Sri Ashwin Shankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri D. Prudhvi Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.33016 of 2022, Sri Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.33156 of 2022 and the learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 & Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in such circumstances, the refusal to allow the petitioners to export the rice procured by them would amount to an unfair discrimination between the persons exempted under the notification and the petitioners. The petitioners in W.P.No.32049 of 2022 have filed documents to show the quantity of broken rice procure by them from various rice mills and traders. These documents would show that the procurement of rice has been done much before 08.09.2022. The petitioner in W.P.No.33016 of 2022 has produced material before this Court to show that the petitioner had procured 4369.410 metric tons of broken rice and has stored the stock in the ware house at Kakinada Port. The letter dated 07.10.2022 issued by the ware house reveals that the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Constitution of India can always interfere with a policy decision, if it is found to be violative of fundamental rights of the petitioners. The learned Deputy Solicitor General submitted that the policy was changed on account of a sudden spurt in prices and on account of danger to the food security of the country and the neighbouring countries. He would submit that the 2nd respondent while undertaking the change in the policy had also taken into account the necessity to protect the persons whose contracts are at an advanced stage and had provided for such an eventuality. He would further submit that the petitioners before this Court do not fall under those categories and in any event the prayers raised in the Writ Petitions itself would ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the 2nd respondent has accepted, in principle, the fact that an abrupt change in the policy would cause loss to the persons who had acted on the basis of the existing policy. After accepting this fact, the 2nd respondent also provided a protection for such persons. However, this protection was restricted to only the persons falling within the three categories mentioned above. To the mind of this Court, the 2nd respondent having accepted, in principle, the requirement of protecting the persons who had already acted on the existing policy, could not have restricted the protection to only the three categories mentioned in the impugned notification. As can be seen in the present case, the petitioners in all the three cases, acting on the....