 Online edition of India's National Newspaper Wednesday, Oct 22, 2008 ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Front Page |
|
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |
Front Page
Appeal filed by Kozhikode-based import firm and others Single judge had earlier upheld the notification 
Kochi: A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on Tuesday upheld the Central government’s notification banning import of palmolein through ports in the State. The Bench of Chief Justice H.L. Dattu and Justice A.K. Basheer upheld the notification while dismissing appeals filed by a Kozhikode-based oil-importing firm and others against a single judge’s verdict dismissing a plea against the import ban. The Director-General of Foreign Trade issued the ban order on December 24, 2007. Earlier, only import through Kochi port was banned. The Bench also dismissed a petition seeking a direction to the State government to impose a ban on import of palmolein through ports in southern States. The appeal challenging the ban contended that the Central government and the Directorate-General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) had no powers to issue such a ban order. It said the decision to ban import of palmolein through the Kochi port initially and then extend the restrictions to other ports in the State under Sections 3 and 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act was irrational and arbitrary. The single judge had observed that the statutory provisions had specifically given the Central government and the DGFT the powers to amend the policy and prohibit or restrict or regulate imports. The power to prohibit imports was expressly stated in Section 3 (2) of the Act. Therefore, the court had held that the power of the DGFT to issue the notification was sustained. The single judge had also observed that drawing up an economic policy might in certain situations decide on various factors, such as political policy, foreign policy and bilateral agreements. It would be beyond the boundary of the judiciary to step in and issue directions on such issues. Rejecting the appeals, the Bench observed that no court could compel the government to frame a policy or change its policy to suit the needs of a particular group of persons. This was a settled legal position. The judges observed that the court did not ordinarily interfere with a policy decision of the executive unless it could be faulted on ground of mala fide and arbitrariness. The mere fact that it would hurt the business interests of a party did not justify invalidation of the policy. The court said that it was fully satisfied that the policy was not irrational and arbitrary.
Printer friendly
page
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Ergo | Home |
Copyright © 2008, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|