UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus INTERNATIONAL TRADING CO. AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 55 · Decided: 07-05-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
INTERNATIONAL TRADING CO. AND ANR. 
MAY 7, 2003 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishery by Foreign Vessels) Act, 
1981 and Rules thereunder/Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14: 
A 
B 
Permit to operate Foreign Deep Sea Fishing Vessels in Indian Exclusive C 
Economic Zone-Renewal denied on ground of change in Government policy 
in public interest-Challenge to---Dismissed by the Single Judge of the High 
Court-Allowed in appeal by the Division Bench holding renewal of permit a 
valuable right/legitimate expectation and could be refused only on cogent and 
valid reasons and should not be based on policy decision contrary to the D 
statute-On appeal, Held: With the change in Government policy right of 
renewal of permit could be denied in public interest-Doctrine of legitimate 
expectation/promissory estoppel loses significance and cannot be invoked in 
favour of renewal. 
Foreign Deep Sea Fishing Vessels-Grant of licence to one party vis- E 
a-vis denial of renewal of permit to another-Whether violative of Article 
I 4-Held: Executive possesses discretion wide enough to effect changes in the 
policy provided it must be made fairly and not arbitrarily-Changes 1,1 policy 
must satisfY the test of reasonableness-Renewal/extension of the permit was 
denied as per changes made in the Government policy-No material adduced p 
to discount legitimacy of the policy-Equal treatment presupposes existence 
of similar legal foothold-It does not countenance repetition of a wrong done 
in another case-Hence, act of the Government in denial of renewal of permit 
is not violative of Article 14 since no discrimination involved-Private-Interest 
and Public Interest-Distinction between-Discussed-Administrative Law. 
Words and Phrases: 
'changes in policy', 'reasonableness '-Meaning of, in the context of 
Article I 4 of the Constitution of India. 
55 
G 
H 
56 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
Doctrines: 
Doctrines of 'legitimate expectation' and 'promissory estoppel '-Meaning 
of 
Respondent-Traders were granted permits under the provisions of 
B the Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) 
Act and Rules thereunder to operate Foreign Deep Sea Fishing Vessels in 
the Exclusive Economic Sea Zones of India. Renewal of the permits was 
denied without assigning any reasons. Aggrieved, respondents filed writ 
petitions which were dismissed by the Single Judge of the High Court. 
C However, on appeal, Division Bench of the High Court held the renewal 
of permit is a valuable right involving legitimate expectation/promissory 
estoppel and it could be refused on cogent and valid grounds only and 
accordingly directed the concerned authority to reconsider renewal of the 
permit in accordance with law. Hence the present appeals. 
D 
It was contended for the appellants that denial of renewal of the 
licence/permit was in conformity with the changed policy of the 
Government; that neither the policy decision 'Nas contrary to the statute 
nor doctrine of legitimate expectation/promissory estoppel could be 
invoked for renewal of the permit; that the authorities acted fairly in not 
E renewing the permit to the respondents, since the respondents did not 
apply in terms of the existing EXIM policy; and that the licence was 
granted to other traders in terms of the existing EXIM policy. 
On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that merely because 
terms of the licence were not indicated, it did not authorize the authorities 
F to refuse renewal; and that by granting licences to other traders, the 
authorities acted arbitrarily, such departure from the policy amounts to 
discrimination and thus impermissible in law. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1. Though there can be a dispute with the proposition that 
renewal of a permit carries with it a valuable right, it cannot be lost sight 
of that for outweighing reasons of public interest renewal can be refused. 
If at the time when the matter is taken up for considering whether renewal 
to be granted, there is a change in policy, it cannot be said that the right 
H is defeated by introduction of a policy. In such an event, the question of 
U.0.1. v. INTERNATIONAL TRADING CO. 
57 
applying doctrine of legitimate expectation or promissory estoppel loses A 
significance. (63-B, C( 
1.2. Doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation 
cannot come in the way 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.