Page 190 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

172 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

Submissions on behalf of the writ-applicant :
4. Mr. Jaimin Dave, the Learned Counsel appearing for the writ-
applicant, vehemently submitted that the amended policy dated 25th June, 2019,
which is now substituted by the policy dated 13th September, 2019, is manifestly
unjust, arbitrary and one favouring big players in the business. He would submit
that the changes introduced by way of a public notice dated 13th September,
2019 has no nexus with the object that is sought to be achieved. In such circum-
stances, the changes are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
5. Mr. Dave gave a fair idea about the old policy and the new policy as
under :

Old Policy New Policy
Lack of Trans- The list of successful importers No such list is published. Al-
parency who were allotted quote were lotments are made behind the
listed in chronology of their closed doors.
name featuring in draw of lots.
Registration Registration required by im- Registration by importer with
porter Respondent No. 2 and by ex-
porter before TMO
Quantity Earlier a single importer can Now a single importer can im-
enhanced import maximum of 90 MTS port maximum of 450 MTS
(18000 MTS will be exhausted (18000 MTS will be exhausted
200 applicants) 40 applicants)
Number of One time in a crop year Six times in a crop year
times importer
can apply
Method of Draw of Lots First Come First Serve
Allotment
Wait List Old policy provided for prepa- New policy does not prescribe
ration of wait-list based on any method for wait-list. In the
draw of lots event of cancellation of contract
of importer, the Respondent
can award contract to anyone
else according to their whims
and fancies
First Time No physical verification of They are required to undergo
Importers documents physical verification of docu-
ments.

6. According to Mr. Dave, under the new regime, any person who has
some source of information will negotiate with the exporter in advance and rush
to register a contract with the TMO. He submitted that the hike in the quota from
90 MTS to 450 MTS coupled with the allotment of quota based on the ‘first-come-
first-serve’ basis is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
7. Mr. Dave seeks to rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Others v. Union of India and Others,
reported in (2012) 3 SCC 1, wherein the Supreme Court has held the practice of
allocation of State largess based on the policy of ‘first-come-first-serve’ basis as
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  190