Case: Union Of India  Vs. International Trading Company

4. Shorn of rhetoric and bereft of legal controversy which constitutes bulk of the armoury as regards attack to the legality of judgment of the High Court by which four Letters Patent Appeals were disposed of, the factual background is as follows:5. The respondents applied for and were granted permits under the provisions of the Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act, 1981 (in short the Act) and the Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Rules, 1982 (in short the Rules). Permits were granted in the Exclusive Economic Zone of India in the prescribed from. The said permit authorized theto obtain on lease and operate Foreign Deep Sea Fishing Vessels in terms of the Act and the Rules. The permit was, however, not renewed after its period of initial currency. Stand of the applicants was that in each case permit was valid for a period of 15 years from the date of issue, since they were granted in accordance with the Government of Indias policy relating to fishing to Deep Sea Resources in India Exclusive Economic Zone by leased Foreign Deep Sea Fishing Vessels, and were operative for a period of 15 years. There is a marked distinction between a chartered vehicle and a leased vehicle because different periods have been prescribed for currency of the concerned permits. Though applications for renewal were filed with requisite fees, no express order was passed in any of the cases declining to grant permit. However, pay orders covering renewal fee were returned to the applicants. Grievance is made that no reason has been indicated and, there is also no reference to any policy decision for not effecting the renewal. The applicants filed writ applications before the High Court. The applications were taken up by a learned Single Judge. With reference to earlier order passed by Division Bench in the case of M/s. Golden Ahar Ltd. and Anr. vs. Union of India and the counter affidavit filed by the present appellants, the writ applications were dismissed. In the said case the Division Bench noticed that renewal of permission was not a matter of right, since there was change in Government policy. In larger public interest, the deep sea fishing policy had to be reframed. A Review Committee was appointed which submitted its recommendations, and in that view of the matter there was no question of directing renewal of the permits. It was noticed by the Court that having regard to the policy decision adopted by the Government of India in the year 1996 pursuant to the report of the Review Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Mr. P. Murari, the Government was in the process of formulating a new deep sea fishing policy. In view of thebefore the learned Single Judge, the applicants filed Letters Patent Appeals before the High Court, wherein the impugned judgment has been passed. The High Court, inter alia, came to the conclusions that renewal of the permit is a valuable right; it could be refused only on cogent and valid grounds; though plea was taken that the renewal period was mentioned by mistake same appears to be an afterthought, and the concerned authorities were required to consider the prayer for renewal of the permit in accordance with law. The authorities were directed to pass an appropriate order thereupon. Principles of natural justice were required to be applied. Though licence has not been granted for a period of 15 years, there has been a legitimate expectation that renewal shall be granted. Policy decision which is contrary to the statute cannot be upheld. The earlier decision in M/s Golden Ahar Ltd. (supra) was not a binding precedent, as several relevant provisions had not been brought to the notice of the Division Bench hearing the case.6. However, it was held that in the circumstances relief was not available by issuing a Mandamus directing the concerned officials to renew the licence. Consideration was to be made by the statutory authorities at the first instance. With the aforesaid conclusions, the authorities were directed to consider the applications and take, a decision within a period of six weeks from the date of communication.

Court's reasoning:
13. Doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation cannot come in the way of public interest. Indisputably, public interest has to prevail over private interest. The case at hand shows that a conscious policy decision has been taken and there is no statutory compulsion to act contrary. In that context, it cannot be said that respondents have acquired any right for renewal. The High Court was not justified in observing that the policy decision was contrary to statute and for that reason direction for consideration of the application for renewal was necessary. Had the High Court not recorded any finding on the merits of respective stands, direction for consideration in accordance with law would have been proper and there would not have been any difficulty in accepting the plea of the learned counsel for the respondents. But having practically foreclosed any consideration by the findings recorded, consideration of the application would have been mere formality and grant of renewal would have been the inevitable result, though it may be against the policy decision. That renders the High Court judgment indefensible.If the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into consideration the national priorities and adopt trade policies. As noted above, the ultimate test is whether on the touchstone of reasonableness the policy decision comes out unscathed.24. Reasonableness of restriction is to be determined in an objective manner and from the standpoint of interests of the general public and not from the standpoint of the interests of persons upon whom the restrictions have been imposed or upon abstract consideration. A restriction cannot be said to be unreasonable merely because in a given case, it operates harshly. In determining whether there is any unfairness involved; the nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restriction imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing condition at the relevant time, enter into judicial verdict. The reasonableness of the legitimate expectation has to be determined with respect of the circumstances relating to the trade or business in question. Canalisation of a particular business in favour of even a specified individual is reasonable where the interests of the country are concerned or where the business affects the economy of the country. (See Parbhani TransportSociety Ltd. vs. Regional Transport Authority, Aurangabad and others (AIR 1960 SC 801 ), Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India (AIR 1974 SC 366 ), Hari Chand Sarda vs. Mizo District Council and Anr. (AIR 1967 SC 829 ) and Krishan Kakkanth vs. Government of Kerala and others (AIR 1997 SC 129)25. As noted above, the appellants have relied upon the change in Government policy prescribing that there shall be no grant of renewal/extension for charter/lease permits. Learned Solicitor General has stated that if respondents apply in terms of prevailing EXIM policy, as was done by the aforenoted 32 vessels, due consideration in accordance with law shall be made.