Page 167 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

2020 ] G.G. HERBALS PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 349

convinced about the final use of cotton seeds and when action is initiated to de-
port/destroy the consignment on the ground that cotton seed is not allowed to
be imported into India as per the Plant Quarantine Order, these importers apply
for relaxation and if their request is rejected, they approach the Courts. Evident-
ly, therefore, the amendment has not been brought about in public interest to
protect biodiversity or on the basis of any Pest Risk Analysis being carried out or
on any finding with regard to the earlier imports having caused any threat to the
bio-security. The only reason for introduction of the amendment in Entry No. 19
of Schedule-VII is to overcome a situation, whereby the importers, upon their
request for relaxation being rejected, appeal to the Courts for relaxation.
29. It is by now settled legal position that this Court in exercise of pow-
ers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would ordinarily not interfere
with a policy decision inasmuch as it is within the discretion of the executive to
frame a policy in the larger public interest. It may, however, at this juncture be
apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Parisons Agrotech (P) Ltd.
v. Union of India, (2015) 9 SCC 657 = 2015 (323) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), wherein the Court
has held thus :
“14. No doubt, the writ Court has adequate power of judicial review in
respect of such decisions. However, once it is found that there is sufficient
material for taking a particular policy decision, bringing it within the four
corners of Article 14 of the Constitution, power of judicial review would not
extend to determine the correctness of such a policy decision or to indulge
into the exercise of finding out whether there could be more appropriate or
better alternatives. Once we find that parameters of Article 14 are satisfied;
there was due application of mind in arriving at the decision which is
backed by cogent material; the decision is not arbitrary or irrational and; it
is taken in public interest, the Court has to respect such a decision of the ex-
ecutive as the policy making is the domain of the executive and the decision
in question has passed the test of the judicial review.
15. In Union of India v. Dinesh Engg. Corpn., (2001) 8 SCC 491, this Court
delineated the aforesaid principle of judicial review in the following man-
ner :
“12. There is no doubt that this Court has held in more than one
case that where the decision of the authority is in regard to the poli-
cy matter, this Court will not ordinarily interfere since these policy
matters are taken based on expert knowledge of the persons con-
cerned and Courts are normally not equipped to question the cor-
rectness of a policy decision. But then this does not mean that the
Courts have to abdicate their right to scrutinise whether the policy
in question is formulated keeping in mind all the relevant facts and
the said policy can be held to be beyond the pale of discrimination
or unreasonableness, bearing in mind the material on record. Any
decision, be it a simple administrative decision or a policy decision,
if taken without considering the relevant facts, can only be termed
as an arbitrary decision. If it is so, then be it a policy decision or
otherwise, it will be violative of the mandate of Article 14 of the
Constitution.”

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  167