LexPARISONSAGROTECH (P) LTD. &ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 505 PARISONSAGROTECH (P) LTD. &ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.4027 of 2009) AUGUST21, 2015 [A.K. SIKRI AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) A<;t, 1992 A B - s. 5 rw s. 3 - Issuance of Notification whereby ban on importation of palm oil through all the ports of Kera/a - Validity C of the Notifications - Challenge to - Held: When a particular decision is taken in the interest of the farmers who are a marginalized section of the society, more so for their survival, this policy decision of the Central Government provides a D complete rational in support of the decision having nexus with the objective sought to be achieved- There is intelligible basis for issuing the impugned Notifications having rational nexus with the objectives sought to be achieved - There is a sufficient public good sought to be achieved by laying down E the exception banning the imports of crude palm oil through ports in Kera/a - s. 3(2) gives ample power to the Government to issue such Notifications in exceptional cases and instant case falls within those parameters - Thus, no error in the view taken by the High Court upholding the Notifications - F Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 14. Administrative law- Policy decision - Judicial Review- Power of - Held: once it is found that there is sufficient material for taking a particular policy decision, bringing it within the G four comers of Article 14, 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- Constitution 505 H 506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10 S.C.R. A oflndia, 1950-Article 14. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 Since the import price of crude palm oil 8 has been much less than the price of coconut oil, the perception of Coconut growers in the State of Kerala was that it was affecting their livelihood. It is a matter of record that there are approximately 35 lakhs farmers in the State of Kerala who sustain their livelihood on c Coconut crop. Therefore, it becomes their life sustaining crop. The Coconut crop covers more than 9 lakhs hectares in Kerala and contributes to nearly 35% of the agricultural income of the State which is a sufficient evidence to indicate that it is not only·main but important o crop of the State. The Coconut growers are predominantly small and marginal with the average size of holding being only half an acre. The significant and marked difference between the price ofcoconut oil a.id palm oil was manifest the fact that percentage difference E between the two stood at 109% in the year 2004, reduced to 50% in December, 2006, to 12% in September 2007 and 0.6% in October 2007. The Board also observed that the import of palm oil in one particular year had a cascading downward impact on coconut oil prices in the F subsequent years. It is more than abundantly clear that the restriction is imposed keeping in view the welfare of 35 lakhs farmers in the State of Kerala. Matter was examined at the highest level. The Government had two alternatives before it, either to increase the custom duty G i.e. duty on the import of crude oil or to issue impugned Notification. Enhancing the import duty would have all India ramification, whereas the problem was Kerala specific. Therefore, instant step was taken. When a H particular decision is taken in the interest of the said farmers who are a marginalized section of the society, PARISONSAGROTECH (P) LTD. &ANR. v. UNION OF 507 INDIA&ORS. more so for their survival, this policy decision of the A Central Government provides a complete rational in support of the decision having nexus with the objective sought to be achieved. [Para 11] [519-H; 520-A-H] 1.2 The writ court has adequate power of judicial B 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 C of such a policy decision or to indulge into the exercise of finding out whether there could be more appropriate or better alternatives. Once the parameters of Article 14 are satisfied; there was due application of mind in arriving at the decision which
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.