As per case facts, multiple merchant exporters had entered into contracts with overseas buyers for sugar export and received advance payments, relying on earlier government notifications allowing restricted sugar export. ...
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
Pallavi/Chitra/Mayur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 18701 OF 2026
Premium Sugars
(th. Its Partner And Authorised Signatory Mr.
Janish R, Murgai) having office at 107-109, P.D.
Mello Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai-400009,
Maharashtra, Phone No. 011-23480600, Email
ID:premiume@gmail.com.
…Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India,
Th. The Secretary,
Ministry Of Commerce And Industry,
Gov. Of India,Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi –
110011. Email:csoffice@nic.in
2. Director General of Foreign Trade,
Ministry of Commerce and Industry,
Government of India,
Vanijya Bhavan, Akbar Road,
New Delhi -110011.
Email: dgft@nic.in
3. Joint Secretary,
Sugar Directorate, Department of Food and
Public Distribution, Ministry of Consumer Affairs,
Food and Public Distribution,
Government of India,
Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi – 110001.
Email : js-sugar@gov.in
4. Additional Secretary
Directorate General of Foreign Trade,
Ministry of Commerce and Industry,
Government of India, Vanjiya Bhavan,
Page 1 of 42
MAYUR
KONDIRAM
ADANE
Digitally signed
by MAYUR
KONDIRAM
ADANE
Date:
2026.08.03
19:01:08 +0530
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
Akbar Road, New Delhi -110011.
Email id: dgft@nic.in
5. Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs,
Mumbai Zone, New Custom House, Ballard
Estate, Mumbai-400001, Maharashtra,
Email id: chiefcommrcusmum1@nic.in
…Respondents
AND
(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.15306 OF 2026
Rika Global Impex Limited
A public limited company incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956/2013 and
having registered office at 2’’ Floor, Sakhar
Bhavan, 230, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021
Through its Authorised Signatory
Mr. Yogesh Manohar Shine.
…Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India,
The Secretary, Ministry of Commerce &
Industry, Vanijya Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110011.
2. Director General of Foreign Trade,
Ex officio Addl. Secretary,
Vanijya Bhawan, ‘A’ Wing, Akbar Road,
New Delhi-110011.
3. Department of Food & Public Distribution
Deputy Secretary (Sugar), Krishi Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001.
4. Commissioner of Customs,
7
th
Floor, Jawaharlal Nehru Customs
House, Nhava Sheva, Dist-Raigad,
Maharashtra-400707.
5. Principal Commissioner of Customs,
Office of Principal Commissioner of Customs,
Customs House, Mundra 5B, Port User Building
Mundra Port, Gujrat.
…Respondents
Page 2 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 8024 OF 2026
Mosur Dharmalingam Sivakumar,
Indian inhabitant, aged about 64 years,
carrying on business as agricultural exporter in
the firm name and style fo Messrs Omvishkar
Exports, as Sole Proprietor thereof having place
of business at New No. 52 (old No. 297), Linghi
Chetty Street, Chennai 600 001.
…Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India
Thr. Secretary Ministry of Commerce and
Industry, Government of India, having office at
Vanijya Bhavan, Akbar Road, New Delhi -
110011.
2. Director General of Foreign Trade,
having office at Vanijya Bhawan, Akbar Road,
New Delhi – 110011 also having Regional Office
at CGO New Building, South East Wing, New
Marine Line, Mumbai-400020.
3. Department of Food and Public Distribution
through Deputy Secretary (Sugar) having office
at Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi 110011.
4. Commissioner of Customs,
having office at 7
th
floor, Jawaharlal Nehru
Customs House, Nhava Sheva, District Raigad
400 707.
….Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 7850 OF 2026
Sucden India Pvt Ltd., having its registered office
at Plot No.89, First Floor, Sector 44, Gurugram,
Haryana -122003. Also at: Mont Vert Avion, C
1203, New Baner Pashan Link Road, Pune,
Maharashtra -411021. …Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India
Thru Secretary Ministry Of Consumer Affairs,
Food and Public Distribution, Department of
Page 3 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
Food & Public Distribution, Krishi Bhawan, New
Delhi -110 001.
2. The Director General of Foreign Trade,
Vanijya Bhawan A Wing, 16, Akbar Road, New
Delhi -110011.
3. Commissioner of Customs (Export),
Pune Customs Commissionerate, 41/A, ICE
House, Sassoon Road, ‘E’ Wing, 4
th
Floor,
Opposite Wadia College, Pune, Maharashtra-
411001. ...Respondents
Mr. Abhishek A Rastogi, a/w Ms. Pooja M Rastogi, Ms. Meenal
Songire, Ms. Aarya More And Ms. Diksha Pandey, in
WP(L)/18701/2026 and WP(L)/15306/2026, for the
Petitioner.
Ms. Somya Tripathi, i/b Mr. T. N. Tripathi and Co. in
WP/8024/2026, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Nikhil Rungta, a/w Mr. D. R. Singh, Mr. Jayesh Ramgini, and
Mr. Harsh Choudhary, in WP/7850/2026, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Anil Singh, A.S.G, a/w Mr. Aditya Thakkr, Mr. Vijay Kantharia,
Mr. Adarsh Vyas, i/b Ms. Leena patil, for the Respondent
Nos. 1 to 4- Union of India in WP(L)/18701/2026,
WP/8024/2026, and WP/7850/2026 and Respondent Nos. 1
to 3 in WP(L)/15306/2026.
Mr. Y. R Mishra, a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Mr. Umesh Gupta, in
WP((L)/15306/2026, for the Respondent No. 4.
Ms. Shruti Vyas, a/w Mr. Abhishek Mishra, in WP/18701/2026, for
the Respondent No. 5.
CORAM : SUMAN SHYAM &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 13
th
JULY 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : 3
rd
AUGUST 2026.
JUDGMENT (Per Advait M. Sethna, J.) :-
1.The judgment has been divided into the following sections to
facilitate analysis:
Page 4 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
Section Contents Paragraph Nos.
I Background. 3 to 5.
II Factual Matrix. 6 to 16.
III Rival Contentions.
A Submissions on behalf of the
Petitioners.
17 to 31.
B Submissions on behalf of the
Respondents.
32 to 50.
IV Analysis. 51 to 84.
V Conclusion. 85 to 91.
2.Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made
returnable forthwith with consent of the parties.
I. Background :
3.These Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The legal issues involved and the relief
sought in these proceedings are common. This is not disputed by
the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, though
they have stated that there may be some minor variations in facts.
We, accordingly proceed to decide the captioned Petitions by this
common judgment. With the consent of parties, Writ Petition (L)
No. 18701 of 2026 (Premium Sugars v/s Union of India & Others.)
is taken as the lead Petition.
4.The Petitioners in these proceedings are primarily aggrieved
by the Notification dated 13
th
May 2026 issued by Respondent No.
2 i.e. Directorate General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce
and Industry (“Impugned Notification” for short). This is assailed
Page 5 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
to the extent that it prohibits export even in cases where the
exporters, including the present Petitioners, have already received
payments from overseas buyers prior to 13
th
May 2026 i.e. the date
of the Impugned Notification, for export of sugar.
5.We are called upon to examine and adjudicate such
challenge mounted by the Petitioners vis-à-vis the case of the
Respondents, which is predominantly premised on a policy
decision taken on the touchstone of national/public interest.
II. Factual Matrix :
6.The Petitioners are merchant exporters who claim to have
entered into private contracts with the overseas buyers for export
of certain allocated quotas of sugar.
7.The Respondent No. 2 i.e. Directorate General of Foreign
Trade (‘DGFT’ for short) issued a Notification dated 24
th
May 2022
under Section 3 read with Section 5 of the Foreign Trade
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (‘FTDR Act’ for short), by
which, the existing policy permitting the ‘free’ export of sugar was
revised, and sugar exports were placed under the ‘restricted’
category.
8.On 14
th
November 2025, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs,
Food and Public Distribution, Department of Food and Public
Distribution (‘DFPD’ for short) had issued a Notification under
Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, read with
Clauses 6 and 7 of the Sugar (Control) Order, 2025.
Page 6 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
9.By the said Notification, the Government decided to allocate
an export quota of 15 lakh metric tonnes (‘LMT’ for short) of sugar
for the 2025–2026 sugar season, which was to be exported by 30
th
September 2026. The export quota was allocated on a pro-rata
basis among operational sugar mills, taking into account their
average sugar production during the preceding three sugar
seasons. It prescribed the modalities governing the export of sugar,
which were required to be complied with in terms thereof.
10.On 13
th
February 2026, another Notification was issued by
the DFPD seeking willingness from the sugar mills, for the export
of an additional 5 LMT of sugar during the 2025–26 sugar season.
The said Notification stipulated that the allotted quota was
required to be exported by 30
th
June 2026. It further provided that
sugar mills which exported at least 70% of their allocated quantity
by 30
th
June 2026 would be permitted to export the remaining
quantity by 30
th
September 2026. However, if any sugar mill failed
to export 70% of its allocated quantity by 30
th
June 2026, the
unutilized portion of its export quota would lapse. Thereafter,
another Notification dated 16
th
March 2026 was issued by the
DFPD, by which, the Government allocated an additional export
quota of 87,587 MT of sugar to the willing sugar mills.
11.The Petitioner’s case is that it had entered into various
contracts with overseas buyers between 14
th
April 2026 to 4
th
May
2026 in respect of export of 2511 MT of sugar, against which the
Petitioner had received full advance payment. The details of these
contracts are at Exhibit E to the Petition. (Premium Sugars, Writ
Petition (L) No. 18701 of 2026).
Page 7 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
12.An Office Memorandum dated 12
th
May 2026 was issued by
DFPD, conveying the decision of the Committee of Ministers (CoM)
that the export of sugar may be prohibited with immediate effect
until further orders during the said sugar season. The said Office
Memorandum further stated that the modalities for implementing
the said decision would be worked out by the DGFT.
13.Pursuant to the above, Respondent No. 2 i.e. the DGFT
issued the Impugned Notification dated 13
th
May 2026, by which,
the export policy governing sugar was amended by changing its
status from ‘restricted’ to ‘prohibited’. It stipulated certain
conditions subject to compliance of which the exports would not
be prohibited. The Impugned Notification stipulated that the
prohibition would come into force with immediate effect from the
date of its issuance until 30
th
September 2026 or until further
orders, whichever was earlier.
14.After the issuance of the Impugned Notification, the
Petitioner addressed representations dated 14
th
May 2026 to the
concerned authorities, seeking permission to complete existing
sugar export contracts executed prior to the issuance of the
Impugned Notification.
15.In the above facts and circumstances and being aggrieved by
the Impugned Notification, the Petitioners approached this Court
by way of these Petitions, assailing the Impugned Notification.
Their challenge is limited to the extent that it prohibits export in
cases where the Petitioners have already received payments from
overseas buyers, prior to its issuance.
Page 8 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
16.During the pendency of these Petitions, the rejection of the
representations made by the Petitioner was communicated to it
vide an email dated 3
rd
June 2026 by the Exports Cell, DGFT. Such
rejection has not been assailed by the Petitioners in the
proceedings before this court.
III. Rival Contentions.
A. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners :
17.Mr. Rastogi, learned counsel for the Petitioners has
strenuously made submissions on behalf of the Petitioners assailing
the Impugned Notification and the actions of the Respondents. He
has primarily contended that the Impugned Notification and the
consequential actions of the Respondents, have caused grave and
irreparable prejudice to the Petitioners.
18.Mr. Rastogi has primarily submitted that the stand taken by
the Respondents, as reflected in the Notifications, is nothing but a
flip-flop and demonstrates a series of apparent contradictions.
According to Mr. Rastogi, the Notification dated 14
th
November
2025, read with the subsequent Notification dated 13
th
February
2026 permitted the export of up to 20 LMT of sugar during the
2025–2026 sugar season. According to him, two wings/organs of
the Government cannot take mutually contradictory stands in a
manner that would prejudice the Petitioner. He would thus submit
that by issuing the Office Memorandum dated 12
th
May 2026, the
DFPD acted in a manner contrary to law, by prohibiting the export
of sugar.
Page 9 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
19.Mr. Rastogi is at pains to point out that, within less than 24
hours of the issuance of the said Office Memorandum dated 12
th
May 2026, the Respondent No. 2 i.e. the DGFT had issued the
Impugned Notification dated 13
th
May 2026. He would submit that
by the said Notification, the DGFT turned turtle by imposing a
complete prohibition on the export of sugar with immediate effect
until 30
th
September 2026, as stipulated therein. It was submitted
that the Respondents' sudden change in policy, altering the export
status of sugar from ‘restricted’ to ‘prohibited’, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, is unfair, unjust, arbitrary, and
unreasonable, warranting interference of this Court.
20.Mr. Rastogi has strenuously urged that, relying upon the
earlier Notifications dated 14
th
November 2025 and 13
th
February
2026, the Petitioners had entered into contract with exporters and
had also received payments from the exporters, under the
legitimate expectation that the Petitioners would be able to export
sugar in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the
said Notification dated 14
th
November 2025 and the subsequent
one dated 13
th
February 2026, respectively. Mr. Rastogi would
submit that the Respondents in the given case cannot resile from
their promise under the principle of promissory estoppel.
21.Mr. Rastogi submitted that, although the Government of
India through the Respondents are free to make policy decision,
the manner in which a blanket and complete prohibition on the
export of sugar has been imposed through the Impugned
Notification is wholly unwarranted, unjustified, and blatantly
arbitrary.
Page 10 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
22.Mr. Rastogi would contend that the actions of the
Respondents pursuant to the Impugned Notification are not only
manifestly arbitrary but also violative of the Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. The Respondents, according to him, have
departed from consistent practice without any rational basis. When
similar export prohibition was imposed in the year 2022, the
Government had issued a subsequent relaxation order dated 10
th
October 2022 permitting completion of export transactions where
advance payments had already been received from overseas
buyers. The Respondents have failed to disclose any reason
whatsoever as to why similarly situated exporters are now being
denied similar protection and treatment. This, according to the
learned counsel, would be in the teeth of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
23.Mr. Rastogi would urge that the action of the Respondents,
pursuant to the Impugned Notification, would amount to depriving
the Petitioners of their vested rights accrued prior to issuance of
the Impugned Notification. This is inasmuch as the Government of
India itself, through the earlier Notifications dated 14
th
November
2025 and 13
th
February 2026, permitted the export of the allocated
quota of sugar and expressly contemplated the export operations
and shipment timelines extending upto 30
th
June 2026 and 30
th
September 2026. The Petitioners acted upon the same and entered
into the binding commercial arrangement, received foreign
remittances and operationalised export transactions. Such
transactions had created a legitimate expectation in favour of the
Petitioners and the Respondents ought not to have acted contrary
Page 11 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
thereto. Therefore, according to Mr. Rastogi, this is yet another
ground to allow the Petition by partially setting aside the
Impugned Notification dated 13
th
May 2026.
24.Mr. Rastogi submitted that approximately 20 containers,
carrying about 540 MT of sugar, had already been
exported/shipped by the Petitioners in the Writ Petition of
Premium Sugars (Writ Petition (L) No. 18701 of 2026). He further
submitted that, in respect of the balance quantity of approximately
1,971 MT, they were in the process of loading, transportation and
shipment when abruptly, without following due process, the
Respondents had halted the export of the sugar by the Petitioners
pursuant the Impugned Notification dated 13
th
May 2026,
completely prohibiting the export of sugar.
25.According to Mr. Rastogi, the impugned actions of the
Respondents cannot have a retrospective effect on the contracts
which have been already executed, where the payments have been
already received, procurement have been made and the substantial
part of the shipping/exports have already been undertaken. This
has a crippling effect on the Petitioner’s trade and business for
which the Impugned Notification deserves to be quashed and set
aside.
26.The pleadings on record indicate that the Petitioner has
placed reliance on the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court
in Shriram Food Industry Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others
1
. This
is to submit even if the Petitioners do not hold Irrevocable
1
. (2024(6) Mh.L.J. 136)
Page 12 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
Commercial Letter of Credit, their case is on a much higher
pedestal. This is in as much as they have received advance
payments from the foreign buyers in pursuance to the private
contracts executed with them.
27.Mr. Rastogi has also placed reliance on Section 2(33) of the
Customs Act, 1962, which defines ‘prohibited goods’. This is to
contend that,
dehors such prohibition as defined, the Petitioners,
having complied with the conditions stipulated in the Notifications
dated 14
th
November 2025 and 13
th
February 2026, are entitled to
export the quota of sugar allocated under the said Notifications.
28.Mr. Rastogi would urge that the actions of the Respondents
of complete prohibition of export of sugar, pursuant to the
Impugned Notification is violation of the fundamental rights of the
Petitioners guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution
of India. Such actions pursuant to the Impugned Notification
unreasonably and arbitrarily interferes with the lawful business
and trade of the Petitioner. This has the effect of adversely
impacting their exports and transactions which have been
substantially acted upon by the Petitioners, prior to the issuance of
the Impugned Notification.
29.Mr. Rastogi would further submit that the actions of the
Respondents pursuant to the Impugned Notification has not only
adversely impacted the Petitioner’s trade and business causing
irreparable, monetary, financial and reputational harm to the
Petitioners, but such actions also adversely affect the image of the
Country where the contracts have been fully executed but are not
Page 13 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
honoured only due to subsequent change in the policy of the
Government. Moreover, the Petitioners would be exposed to the
risk of being subjected to arbitration proceedings at the instance of
the overseas buyers.
30.Mr. Rastogi further submits that the Petitioners had made a
representation dated 14th May 2026 to the Respondent
authorities. However, the Respondents communicated their reply
on the same vide an email/communication dated 3
rd
June 2026
rejecting the said representation. According to him, such
communication rejecting the said representation was cryptic, non-
speaking and devoid of any reasons, and did not disclose the basis
on which the Petitioners’ contentions and request had been
rejected.
31.Mr. Rastogi would therefore pray that the Petitions be
allowed, and the Rule be made absolute.
B. Submissions on behalf of the Respondents:
32.Mr. Anil Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing on behalf of the Respondents has vehemently argued in
support of the actions of the Respondents assailed in the present
proceedings. He would at the outset submit that the Government
of India by issuing the Notifications from time to time including
the Impugned Notification has taken a policy decision, in larger
public interest. Such policy decision, in the given facts and
circumstances, does not warrant any interference, more
particularly, when the vires and/or validity of such Notifications
has not been questioned, much less challenged by the Petitioner.
Page 14 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
33.Mr. Singh has placed reliance on an earlier Notification
dated 24
th
May 2022 (Exhibit 'C', Pg. 76 of Writ Petition (L) No.
18701 of 2026), issued by DGFT in regard to the amendment of
the export policy relating to sugar. By the said notification, the
existing policy permitting the ‘free’ export of sugar was revised,
and sugar exports were placed under the ‘restricted’ category. The
said Notification also prescribed certain policy conditions
governing and regulating the export of sugar. Mr. Singh submitted
that the Ministry/Department issuing the Notification dated 24
th
May 2022, and the Impugned Notification dated 13
th
May 2026, is
the same.
34.Mr. Singh, relying on the said Notification, has contended
that the Impugned Notification merely changes the export policy
governing sugar from ‘restricted’ to ‘prohibited’, just as the
Notification dated 24
th
May 2022 had altered the policy from ‘free’
to ‘restricted’. According to him, these policy decisions have been
taken by the Government of India after assessing the domestic
requirement of sugar and keeping in view the interests of the
domestic sugar industry. The objective is to ensure that any
anticipated shortfall in domestic sugar production is addressed by
curtailing exports so as to prevent any shortage in the availability
of sugar within the country. Bearing such public interest in mind
that the Government of India has made the necessary changes in
the export policy of sugar which, cannot be branded as
unreasonable, arbitrary or discriminatory on any parameter,
whatsoever.
Page 15 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
35.Mr. Singh submits that all of this was done in due exercise of
the powers and authority conferred to the Respondents under
various statutory provisions including the FTDR Act. He would
contend that in the absence of any challenge to the vires and/or
validity of any of these provisions, which is admittedly not the
case, the challenged mounted in the Petition is only to benefit the
commercial interest of the Petitioners before this Court.
36.Mr. Singh has further submitted that reliance placed by the
Petitioners on the relaxation order dated 10
th
October 2022, is
misplaced. This is because such order was a one-time discretionary
relaxation granted in the specific circumstances prevailing during
the sugar season 2023–24 and could not be treated as a binding
precedent governing subsequent sugar seasons. It was submitted
that each sugar season and its market condition is different and
there is no compulsion for the Government to extend a relaxation
granted in one particular season uniformly to all subsequent sugar
seasons.
37.Mr. Singh would submit that by allocation of different quotas
of sugar i.e. 15 LMT quota under the Notification dated 14
th
November 2025, followed by another 5 LMT under the Notification
dated 13
th
February 2025, there is no vested rights created or
accrued in favour of the Petitioners. This is more particularly, when
the Respondents have decided to merely allocate quotas for
allocation of sugar, keeping in mind the domestic production and
indigenous requirements. In this regard, Mr. Singh has relied upon
the decision of the Delhi High Court in Go-Go International and
Page 16 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
another v. Union of India and another
2
, to submit that the mere
issuance of a quota does not confer any vested or accrued right
upon the recipient so as to preclude the Government from
subsequently changing the policy or modifying the terms and
conditions governing such quota.
38.Mr. Singh has invited the Court’s attention to the Affidavit-
In-Reply filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 3 dated 29
th
June
2026 (in Writ Petition (L) No. 18701 of 2026, Premium Sugars),
which is on record. He has placed due reliance on paragraph 3 of
the said Affidavit, which explains the various aspects leading to the
decision of the Government to prohibit export of sugar, pursuant to
the Impugned Notification. Briefly, as per the estimates released for
the current sugar season of the year 2025-26, the total sugar
production was estimated at around 343 LMT. However, the actual
sugar production had significantly declined to around 308 LMT
only.
39.Mr. Singh has contended that the export of 15 LMT of sugar
was allowed on 14
th
November 2025 to manage the surplus sugar
and improve the liquidity of sugar mills. Further, for the export of
additional 5 LMT sugar pursuant to the Notification dated 13
th
February 2026, the willingness was sought from the sugar mills for
the desired quantity of sugar to be exported by 30
th
June 2026.
Accordingly, the export quota of 85,587 MT from the 5 LMT was
allocated to the eligible sugar mills on 16
th
March 2026. Moreover,
the anticipated El-Nino effect is likely to adversely impact domestic
sugar production in the ensuing sugar season. In view thereof,
2
. 2004 (77) DRJ 145
Page 17 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
sufficient closing stock of sugar would be essential for its domestic
consumption, at a reasonable price.
40.Mr. Singh would then submit that international prices of
sugar reached to the season’s high (more than the ex-mill prices in
India) and are at the level of export parity from India. In such
situation, the closing stock used for domestic consumption would
fall short of 40 LMT, adversely affecting the domestic sugar
industry when, ordinarily, 50 to 60 LMT sugar is maintained at the
end of every sugar season.
41.Mr. Singh would contend that the matter regarding low
sugar production, domestically, was taken up and considered in the
Inter-Ministerial Committee which recommended a ban on sugar
export. Further, the matter was referred to the Committee of
Secretaries (CoS) which also considered the declining domestic
sugar production and recommended a ban on sugar export with
immediate effect. Thereafter, the matter was taken up with the
Committee of Ministers (CoM) which, after due deliberation,
decided to prohibit sugar export with immediate effect. All of this
would unequivocally demonstrate that the decision to prohibit the
export of sugar was taken with a view to maintain sufficient
quantity of sugar for domestic consumption and to ensure price
stability of sugar within the Country.
42.Mr. Singh would submit that sugar is an essential commodity
and it is the priority of the Government of India to ensure
sufficient quantity for domestic consumption of sugar at reasonable
price, followed by diversion to ethanol production, in case of
Page 18 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
surplus availability. It is the additional surplus, if any, that can be
used for the export of such sugar. It is in such circumstances that
the representation submitted by the Petitioners was addressed by
the Respondents.
43.Mr. Singh would urge that despite such clear and categorical
Affidavit-In-Reply of the Respondent No. 3 making clear the stand
of the Respondent on the export of sugar and its policy decisions in
that regard, there is no Affidavit-In-Rejoinder of the Petitioners to
refute or rebut such stand. In view thereof, proceeding on the basis
of bare denial considering such detailed and substantial averments
made in the Affidavit-In-Reply of the Respondent No. 3, it is
incumbent to accept the correctness thereof, in the absence of any
denial thereto, on pleadings by the Petitioners.
44.Mr. Singh, by referring to the Impugned Notification, would
submit that the Petitioners have incorrectly projected that there is a
total/complete ban of export of sugar vide the same. He would
point out that three conditions stipulated in the Notification
subject to fulfillment of which the export of sugar would be
permitted. However, the Petitioners have not complied with any of
the three conditions stipulated therein for being eligible to export
sugar. In view thereof, the Petitioners, for their own commercial
interest cannot make grievances against the Respondents
considering that there is no blanket ban or prohibition in the
export of sugar under
the Impugned Notification.
45.Mr. Singh would emphasize that the prohibition contained in
the Impugned Notification is not applicable to sugar exported to
Page 19 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
countries like EU and USA under the CXL and TRQ quotas;
Advanced Authorisation Scheme; Government to Government
Exports; and Consignments already in physical pipelines. The
Petitioners do not fall within any of the such exceptions carved out
in the Impugned Notification so as to enable, much less, entitle
them to export the sugar.
46.Referring to the exception in terms of the expression
“consignments already in physical exports pipeline” mentioned in
clause (iv) of the Impugned Notification, Mr. Singh submits that
although the said expression is not a defined expression, it can be
read in terms of Section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962. This is to
mean an actual clearance of goods for exportation. In the absence
of any specific document, such as a Let Export Order, evidencing
that the goods had in fact entered the physical export process, the
Petitioners cannot claim any benefit under the exceptions.
47.In the above context, Mr. Singh has relied upon the decision
of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Asian Food Industries
3
,
to submit that for the purposes of interpreting the provisions of the
FTDR Act and the procedures laid down thereunder vis-à-vis
Section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962, the relevant consideration is
the actual permission granted by the proper officer for the
clearance and loading of goods for exportation. Accordingly, in the
absence of any material evidencing compliance with the
requirements of Section 51, the Petitioners cannot derive any
assistance from the definition of “prohibited goods” under Section
2(33) of the Customs Act.
3
. (2006) 13 SCC 542
Page 20 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
48.Mr. Singh has emphatically urged that the representations
were made by the Petitioners for relaxation, clarification and relief
in respect of the Impugned Notification during the sugar season
2025-2026. Such representation has been answered by the
Respondents vide communication dated 3
rd
June 2026. It is stated
therein that export of sugar is strictly subject to conditions and
specific exemption specified under the Impugned Notification. No
separate relaxations are available for pre-exisiting commercial or
financial obligations. Such rejection of the Petitioners’
representations has not been challenged by the Petitioners in these
proceedings.
49.Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ugar
Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administration and Others
4
, Mr. Singh
has submitted that a policy decision of the State cannot be
interfered with merely because it adversely affects the business
interests of a particular party. Unless the policy is shown to be
irrational, perverse or actuated by
mala fides, the mere fact that it
causes hardship or prejudice to a party would not furnish a ground
for invalidating the same. Accordingly, it was submitted that the
Government was entitled to issue, withdraw or modify its policy.
The Petitioners could, therefore, claim neither a vested nor an
accrued right, nor insist that the Government remain bound by its
previous policy.
50.In light of the above, Mr. Singh would urge that the Petitions
are devoid of any merits and deserve to be dismissed.
4
. (2001) 3 SCC 635
Page 21 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
IV. Analysis :
51.Upon considering the submissions of the respective parties
through their learned counsel, the thrust of the Petitions before us
is this:-
The Respondents under the garb of the Impugned
Notification cannot deprive or prevent the Petitioners from
undertaking exports pursuant to certain private contracts
executed by them in favour of foreign buyers, for which
advance payments/remittances are stated to be received
by the said Petitioners. The action of the Respondents,
coupled with issuance of the Impugned Notification to the
extent it prohibits exports of sugar by Petitioners, is,
therefore, legally untenable and unsustainable.
52.At this juncture, we may note herein that the Respondents
had issued the earlier Notifications dated 14
th
November 2025 and
13
th
February 2026 under the provisions of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955. By such Notifications, quota of sugar to
the extent of about 20 LMT, as noted above, was allocated to the
sugar mills to be exported within such timelines as stipulated in
the said Notifications. The Petitioners, being merchant exporters,
anticipated that they would gain certain benefits in the form of
export quota allocation under the said Notifications. Accordingly,
the Petitioners approached the sugar mills, entering into an
arrangement under which the Petitioners as merchant exporters
would procure sugar from the quotas allocated to the sugar mills,
for export.
Page 22 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
53.However, as the facts would have it, pursuant to issuance of
the aforementioned Notifications, the Impugned Notification was
issued by the Respondent No. 2 i.e. the DGFT, prescribed as the
competent authority under the FTDR Act. For the sake of
convenience, the Impugned Notification is reproduced herein
below:
“Government of India Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Department of Commerce (Directorate General of Foreign
Trade) *****
Vanijya Bhawan, Akbar Road, New Delhi - 110 011
Notification No. /6 /2026-27
New Delhi, 13
th
May, 2026
Subject: Amendment in Export Policy of Sugar - regarding.
S.O. (E): The Central Government, in exercise of powers
conferred by Section 3 read with Section 5 of the Foreign
Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 (No. 22 of
1992), as amended, read with Para 1.02 and 2.01 of the
Foreign Trade Policy, 2023, hereby amends the export policy of
Sugar under Chapter 17 of ITC (HS), Schedule - I as under:
ITC
(HS)
Code
Description Existing
Policy
Revised
Policy
Policy Condition
1701
14 90
1701
99 90
Sugar(Raw
Sugar, White
Sugar and
Refined Sugar)
Restricted Prohibited Export of Sugar
is prohibited
with immediate
effect till
September 30,
2026, or till
further orders,
whichever is
earlier.
2. This prohibition shall not apply to Sugar being exported to
the EU and USA under CXL and TRQ quota, as per the
prescribed procedure in the respective Public Notices.
3. Export of Sugar under the Advance Authorization Scheme
(AAS) shall continue to be governed as per existing provisions
Page 23 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023 and the Handbook of
Procedures, 2023.
4. This Notification shall come into effect immediately. The
provisions of Para 1.05 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023
regarding transitional arrangement shall not be applicable
under this Notification. Notwithstanding the above prohibition,
export of Sugar shall be permitted in respect of consignments
fulfiling any one of the following conditions:-
(i). where loading of sugar on the ship has commenced before
the date of publication of this Notification in the Official
Gazette;
(ii). where the Shipping Bill has been filed and the vessel has
berthed or arrived and anchored in an Indian port, with its
rotation number allocated by the Port Authority, before the date
of publication of this Notification in the Official Gazette. The
approval for loading in such vessels shall be issued only after
confirmation by the concerned Port Authority regarding
berthing/anchoring prior to this Notification; or,
(iii) where the sugar consignment has been handed over to
Customs/Custodian before the date of publication of this
Notification in the Official Gazette and is registered in their
electronic system, with verifiable evidence of the date and time
of such handing over.
5. The export of the above products/ items, however, shall be
allowed on the basis of permission granted by the Government of
India to other countries to meet their food security needs and
based on the request of their governments.
6. In case the date of prohibition on sugar exports under this
Notification is not extended beyond September 30, 2026, the
export policy for sugar falling under ITC (HS) Code 1701 14 90
and 1701 99 90 shall revert back to "Restricted".
Effect of this notification: The export policy of Sugar (Raw Sugar,
White Sugar and Refined Sugar) under ITC (HS) Codes 1701 14
90 and 1701 99 90 is amended from 'Restricted' to 'Prohibited'
with immediate effect till September 30, 2026, or until further
orders, whichever is earlier. This prohibition is not applicable to
Sugar being exported under: (i) EU and USA under CL and TRQ
quota, (ii) Advance Authorization Scheme (AAS), (iii)Government-
to-Government exports, and, (iv) consignments already in physical
export pipeline.
This is issued with the approval of the Minister of Commerce &
Industry, Government of India.
(Lav Agarwal) Director General of Foreign Trade & Ex-Officio
Additional Secretary to the Govt of India E-mail: dgft@nic.in”
Page 24 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
Vide the Impugned Notification, the Government of India
decided to prohibit the export of sugar which was earlier
categorized/classified as a restricted item, for export. Such
Notification was however, subject to certain terms and
conditions as set out in the Impugned Notification.
54.Contextually, we may now refer to the Affidavit-in-Reply
dated 10
th
June 2026 filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4
(in Writ Petition (L) No. 18701 of 2026, Premium Sugars). The
Deponent has clearly stated therein that the Impugned Notification
was issued in exercise of the plenary power conferred under
Section 3 read with Section 5 of the FTDR Act so as to implement
the decision of Committee of Ministers (CoM) dated 12
th
May 2026
communicated vide the Office Memorandum issued by DFPD
prohibiting export of sugar for the sugar season 2025-2026. This
was issued with the objective to ensure sufficient closing stock of
sugar at the end of the said sugar season. Such decision was taken
at the highest level by the Committee of Ministers having
considered various aspects and after due application of mind,
guided by larger public interest.
55.Adverting to another Affidavit-In-Reply dated 29
th
June 2026
filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 3 (in Writ Petition (L) No.
18701 of 2026, Premium Sugars), wherein it is
inter alia stated
that for the said sugar season of 2025-2026, the total production
was estimated at 343 LMT. Whereas, as per actual trend, there was
a significant decline in the same, to around 308 LMT. On a conjoint
reading of both the Affidavits of the Respondents, we find that the
Page 25 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
policy decision taken to prohibit export of sugar for the said sugar
season was taken after following due process including due
deliberation and consulting the Committee of Ministers.
56.We may now deal with the contention of Mr. Rastogi to the
effect that the Respondents had unfairly and illegally issued the
said Office Memorandum dated 12
th
May 2026 which dealt with
prohibition of sugar for the sugar season 2025-2026. It is
immediately after a day of such Office Memorandum that the
Impugned Notification was issued. We have already observed
above that the said Office Memorandum and the Impugned
Notification were issued in larger public interest after following
due process and consultation with the Committee of
Ministers/Experts, at the highest level. We, therefore, do not find
any irrationality, irregularity, much less, illegality in the issuance of
such Office Memorandum and/or the Impugned Notification.
57.In our view, issuance of the Impugned Notification after the
said Office Memorandum is not a knee-jerk reaction as the
Petitioners project it to be. However, as observed above, the same
manifests a well thought about policy decision, taken in the
interest of the domestic sugar market in India including domestic
consumers. The said Office Memorandum clearly states that the
modalities of such exports shall be worked out by DGFT, in terms
of the Impugned Notification.
58.As submitted at the Bar on behalf of the Petitioners through
their counsel, they have no quarrel,
per se, with the policy decision
of the government. However, their grievances stem from the
Page 26 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
Impugned Notification. The same is limited to the extent it
prohibits their exports purportedly undertaken before the date of
issuance of the Impugned Notification. This is on the basis of
private contracts and remittances received from certain foreign
buyers.
59.We may now address Mr. Rastogi’s fundamental contention
that by the said Office Memorandum, followed by the Impugned
Notification, grave and irreparable injury has been caused to the
Petitioners. This is inasmuch as they have already executed 6
contracts as stated in the Petition (Writ Petition (L) No. 18701 of
2026, Premium Sugars) and pursuant thereto, 540 MT of sugar has
already been exported prior to the issuance of the Impugned
Notification. The Petitioners claim to have received payments from
their foreign buyers, pursuant to certain contracts executed prior to
issuance of the Impugned Notification. However, we do not find
much substance in such claim/contention of the Petitioners for
reasons set out in the paragraphs below.
60.It may be true that the Petitioner, in the matter of Premium
Sugars (Writ Petition (L) No. 18701 of 2026), as stated by them,
may have executed about 6 private contracts with foreign buyers,
the details of which are annexed to the said Petition. However, we
are unable to accept that execution of such bilateral private
contracts, would confer any legal right on the Petitioner so as to
supersede the Impugned Notification issued by the competent
authority, under the provisions of the FTDR Act.
Page 27 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
61.In the above context, we may now advert to para 1.05 (b) of
the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023, which bears reference in the
Impugned Notification. The said para reads thus:
“(a) Any License/ Authorisation/ Certificate/ Scrip/
instrument bestowing financial or fiscal benefit issued
before commencement of FTP 2023 shall continue to be
valid for the purpose and duration for which it was issued,
unless otherwise stipulated.
(b) Item wise Import/Export Policy is delineated in the
ITC (HS) Schedule I and Schedule II respectively. The
importability/exportability of a particular item is governed
by the policy as on the date of import/ export. The date of
import/ export is defined in para 2.17 of HBP 2023. Bill of
Lading and Shipping Bill are the key documents for
deciding the date of import and export respectively. In
case of change of policy from 'free to
'restricted/prohibited/state trading' or 'otherwise
regulated', the import/export already made before the
date of such regulation/restriction will not be affected.
However, the import through High Sea sales will not be
covered under this facility.
Further, the import/export on
or after the date of such regulation/restriction will be
allowed for importer/ exporter who has a commitment
through Irrevocable Commercial Letter of Credit (ICLC)
before the date of imposition of such restriction/
regulation and shall be limited to the balance quantity,
value and period available in the ICLC. For operational
listing of such ICLC, the applicant shall have to register
the ICLC with jurisdictional RA against computerized
receipt within 15 days of imposition of any such
restriction/ regulation. Whenever, Government brings out
a policy change of a particular item, the change will be
applicable prospectively (from the date of Notification)
unless otherwise provided for”
In light of the above, we may note that the
Petitioners acknowledge the fact of not holding an
Irrevocable Commercial Letter of Credit before the
issuance of the Impugned Notification as mandated
under the said para 1.05 (b) (supra). Moreover, there is
Page 28 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
no application for registration certificate by the
Petitioners as required under para 1.05 (b) of the
Foreign Trade Policy, 2023. This is specifically stated by
the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 in their Affidavit-in-Reply
dated 22
nd
June 2026 (in Writ Petition (L) No. 18701 of
2026, Premium Sugars) in regard to which, there is no
denial on record. In view thereof, Mr. Rastogi’s reliance
on the said Policy provision does not assist nor take the
case of the Petitioners any further.
62.In regard to the above, we have come across a decision in
Shriram Food Industry Ltd (supra) relied on by Mr. Rastogi, which
is also annexed to one of the Petitions (Writ Petition (L) No. 18701
of 2026, Premium Sugars). On a careful perusal thereof, we find
that the said decision proceeds on the premise that the Petitioners
therein had Irrevocable Commercial Letters of Credit which were
issued before the issuance of a similar Notification therein. This
was to make out a case of part performance of their obligations
under certain contracts, in the context of Para 1.05 of the Foreign
Trade Policy, 2023. Such fact of holding such Irrevocable
Commercial Letter of Credit before issuance of the Impugned
Notification, is completely absent in all the given cases. The legal
requirement of holding Irrevocable Commercial Letters of Credit
cannot be substituted by accepting the Petitioner’s contention of
receiving advance payments under private contracts with some
overseas buyers, which the law does not mandate. In view thereof,
the said judgment is clearly distinguishable in the given facts.
Page 29 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
63.Mr. Rastogi has emphatically submitted that the Impugned
Notification is unreasonable, manifestly arbitrary, and therefore
contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In this context,
we have noted the submission with regard to reliance placed on a
similar export restriction in the year 2022 which was subsequently
relaxed vide order dated 10
th
October 2022, permitting export
where advance payments were already received from the foreign
buyers.
64.However, it appears from the record, more particularly, from
the Affidavit-In-Reply of Respondent No.1, 2 and 4 dated 10
th
June
2026 (in Writ Petition (L) No. 18701 of 2026, Premium Sugars)
that the said order was a one-time discretionary relaxation granted
in the context of sugar season 2023-24. This cannot constitute a
precedent for subsequent sugar seasons. There are several dynamic
factors which play their role in this regard, considering which the
fact situation for every sugar season including the subject sugar
season 2025-2026 cannot be painted with the same brush. In any
event, such matters lie within the domain of policy decision of the
Executive prompted by larger public and national interest.
65.We may observe that the earlier Notifications dated 14
th
November 2025 and 13
th
February 2026 were issued by DFPD
under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, whereas the
Impugned Notification is issued under the aegis of Section 3 of the
FTDR Act by DGFT. Both these Notifications operate under
different statutes and are meant to be applicable in different
situations for distinct purposes. The earlier Notifications dated 14
th
November 2025 and 13
th
February 2026
(supra) issued under the
Page 30 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 are for quota allocation for
exports which are to be completed within the timelines specified
therein. Whereas, the Impugned Notification issued under the
FTDR Act deals with the policy condition
qua sugar exports, laying
down the existing policy from ‘restricted’ to ‘prohibited’, based on
the bedrock of larger public interest, as discussed above. In view
thereof, the reliance placed by Mr. Rastogi on the definition of
‘prohibited goods’ as defined under Section 2(33) of the Customs
Act, 1962, would have no bearing in the given facts and
circumstances, more particularly, as they have not fulfilled the pre-
conditions stipulated in the Impugned Notification.
66.We, therefore, do not find substance in the contention of Mr.
Rastogi which would lead us to infer that there could be an overlap
between the earlier Notifications and the Impugned Notification
under which the Government/Respondents cannot, according to
the Petitioners, take a contradictory position. This is in as much as
they are issued under different statutes and operate under different
spheres, for distinct purposes.
67.We find that even under the restricted regime governing
sugar exports, the export of sugar to the EU under the CXL Quota
and to the USA under the Tarrif Rate Quota (TRQ) was already
classified as ‘free’ subject to the conditions contained in the
Notifications dated 28
th
April 2015 and 17
th
June 2025. The
Impugned Notification amended the export policy from ‘restricted’
to ‘prohibited’. However, there is no change in the pre-existing
‘Free’ status of CXL and TRQ exports to the EU and USA
respectively, which continues in the Impugned Notification. The
Page 31 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
Impugned Notification prescribes certain pre-conditions to be
complied with, which are clothed with sufficient safeguards. The
Petitioners before the Court do not dispute that such pre-conditions
as set out in paragraph 4 of the Impugned Notification are not
complied with.
68.Adverting to the expression “consignments already in
physical exports pipeline” as referred to in ‘Effects’ of the
Impugned Notification, a query was put by the Court to the
learned counsel for the parties at the Bar. This, in the context as to
when/in what situation this would apply. Mr. Rastogi would submit
that execution of contracts and receipt of payments from the
foreign buyer would attract the expression. However, Mr. Singh
would urge that this would be relatable to Section 51 of the
Customs Act, 1952 which deals with clearance of goods for
exportation. The record bears out that vital documents like
Irrevocable Commercial Letter of Credit and/or Let Export Order
which is mandated under Section 51 of the Customs Act are absent
in the given cases. In view thereof, the submissions advanced by
the learned counsel, would be like taking ‘Coal to Newcastle’ and
therefore, will not be of any assistance to the Petitioners.
69.At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to the decision
of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs Asian Food Industries
(supra)
, relied on by Mr. Singh for the Respondents. The
observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 36 of the
said decision are noteworthy. As held therein, what would be
relevant for the purposes of interpretation of the provisions of the
FTDR Act read with the procedures framed thereunder vis-à-vis the
Page 32 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
provisions of Section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962, is the actual
permission of the proper officer, granting clearance and loading of
the goods for exportation. In the given factual matrix, the
Petitioners have placed no material to even remotely demonstrate
compliance with the requirements of the said statutory provisions.
Thus, in our view, the said decision is apposite and applicable in
the given facts. We are, therefore, not in agreement with the
contentions of Mr. Rastogi, in this regard.
70.We find that the Petitioners had made a representation dated
14
th
May 2026 in the lead Petition (Premium Sugars) to the
Respondent authorities. However, the record bears out that the
said representation was duly considered and rejected by a
communication/order dated 3
rd
June 2026, during the pendency of
the Petition. On a specific query to learned counsel for the
Petitioner, it is accepted that the said rejection of the Petitioner’s
representation is not challenged in the proceedings before this
Court and therefore such rejection would hold the field. The
Petitioner’s case is that the communication rejecting their
representations lacks reasons and is cryptic. However, as the same
is not assailed in these proceedings, the window of seeking any
clarification from the Respondents is also closed for the said
Petitioner, in such fact situation.
71.Let us now examine Mr. Rastogi’s submission that applying
the prohibition under the Impugned Notification to the pre-existing
contracts where payments are already received, would tantamount
to giving a retrospective effect to the Impugned Notification.
However, a bare perusal of the Impugned Notification itself would
Page 33 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
indicate that it uses the language ‘with immediate effect’ and
specifies that export of sugar is “Prohibited until 30
th
September
2026 or until further orders”. Thus, a bare perusal of the Impugned
Notification itself clearly provides that it is meant to and ought to
apply prospectively. The submission coupled with the
interpretation espoused by Mr. Rastogi in this regard, would lend
no assistance to the case of the Petitioners in the given factual
matrix.
72.Moreover, we may note that consignment in respect of which
Let Export Order is issued by the Customs prior to 13
th
May 2026
i.e. before the issuance of the Impugned Notification are
unaffected, subject to verification from customs record. The
contention of the Petitioners
qua their incomplete exports, is
seriously disputed by the Respondents. Considering that these
issues would also entrench upon the realm of disputed facts, they
cannot be adjudicated in a Writ Petition.
73.We advert to the submission of the Petitioners that by issuing
the Impugned Notification the Respondents have acted in violation
of the Petitioners vested right and their legitimate expectation. In
this context, firstly, we may note that the earlier Notifications
dated 14
th
November 2025 and 13
th
February 2026 only allocate
quotas of sugar to sugar mills for the purposes of export. We find
substance in the submission of Mr. Singh, that mere allocation of
quotas
per se cannot create any vested right.
74.This is for the reason that the earlier Notifications dated 14
th
November 2025 and 13
th
February 2026 as reflected therein set out
Page 34 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
the modalities to undertake export of sugar as specified in the said
Notifications. The language, purport and intent of the said
Notifications, more particularity from a bare reading of paragraph
4 onward of the Notification dated 14
th
November 2025 makes the
aspect of modalities crystal clear. In view thereof, we cannot accept
the Petitioner’s submission of any right being created in their
favour. Consequently, there is no question of divesting them of any
rights much less vested rights.
75.We may now advert to the decision cited by Mr. Singh in
Ugar Sugar works Ltd. Vs. Delhi Administration and Others
5
, more
particularly paragraph 18 thereof, in the context of judicial review
of policy decision. The Supreme Court in the said decision has held
that if a policy cannot be faulted on the grounds of irrationality,
perversity and mala fides, the mere fact that it would hurt business
interest of a party does not justify invalidating the policy. The
Courts are not expected to express their opinions as to whether at
a particular point of time or in a particular situation, such policy
should have been adopted or not. It is best left to the discretion of
the State. We, therefore, find ourselves in agreement with the
submission of Mr. Singh, in this regard.
76.Contextually, we find merit in reliance of Mr. Singh on the
judgment of Go-Go International (Supra), where the Delhi High
Court was dealing with export import policy and changes in the
terms and conditions thereof. The Delhi High Court has held that
the Petitioner cannot claim any vested right merely on the issuance
of quotas. In arriving at the above conclusion
(supra), the Delhi
5
. (2001) 3 SCC 635
Page 35 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
High Court had placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme
Court in
PTR Exports (Madras) Private Limited and Others vs.
Union of India & Others
6
. This to the effect that, when the
government is satisfied that change in the policy was necessary in
the public interest, it would be entitled to revise the policy and lay
down a new policy. This Court, therefore, would be inclined to
recognize the authority of the government to evolve fiscal policy in
public interest and to act upon the same. Accordingly, the
government would be well within its jurisdiction to issue or
withdraw or modify such policy. As such, the Petitioners would
have no vested or accrued right, to seek enforcement thereof, in
the absence of any arbitrariness or
malafides attributable to the
Respondents. Mr. Rastogi has attempted to distinguish the said
decision, however, in our considered view, in light of the clear legal
position in the said decisions, the same would be befittingly
applicable to the proceedings before us.
77.Mr. Rastogi has attempted to rely upon the principle of
promissory estoppel at the Bar. However, we do not find any
pleadings on record to substantiate such submission. In the
absence of any material on record, the Petitioners have failed to
demonstrate as to how there would be any material alteration of
their legal and/or vested rights, in the given facts and
circumstances. This being so, the plea of promissory estoppel
raised during arguments, would pale into insignificance, in the
given factual complexion.
6
1996 SCC 5 268
Page 36 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
78.We may now advert to the case of the Petitioners
emphatically urged by Mr. Rastogi premised on the doctrine of
legitimate expectation, the denial of which, he would submit, is
contrary to law. In this context, it is apposite to refer to the
decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Parvesh Singh and Others vs
State of Bihar and Others
7
. Here the Supreme Court had posed a
question as to what is legitimate expectation? It was held that
obviously it is not a legal right. It is an expectation of a benefit,
relief or remedy that may ordinarily flow from a promise or
established practice…………”. Not being a right, it is not
enforceable as such.
79.Considering the above and its relevance to the given factual
matrix, we may observe that the Petitioners have no direct dealings
with the authorities, neither have they entered into any
transactions or negotiations directly with the statutory authorities.
In view thereof, the absence of any discriminatory and/or arbitrary
exercise of power/authority by the Respondents, would not
warrant interference of this Court, in writ jurisdiction, in the given
factual matrix.
80.The Supreme Court has in the decision of PTR Exports
(Madras) Private Limited (supra) examined the submissions on the
basis of vested rights and legitimate expectation. It held that it
would be open to the government to evolve new schemes. The
Petitioners would get their legitimate expectations accomplished in
accordance with such schemes subject to them satisfying the
conditions required therein. Accordingly it was held that the High
7
. 2006 SCC 8 381
Page 37 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
Court was right in its conclusion that the government is not barred
by the promises or the legitimate expectations, from evolving new
policy by the Notification. These observations and the law laid
down in the said decision would, in our considered view, squarely
apply to the facts of the present case.
81.We are conscious of the decision of the Supreme Court in
Aravali Golf Club vs Chander Hass
8
, wherein it has held that the
Court must maintain judicial restraint and not ordinarily encroach
in the domain of the executive or the legislature. Such observations
were made in the context of the impugned press note and
notification which were assailed therein. We find that the ratio laid
down in the said decision is applicable in the given fact situations.
82.We find it pertinent to observe that the Petitioners being
Export Houses/Merchant Exporters for export of sugar, they may
have executed bilateral arrangements with sugar mills and/or
overseas buyers. However, it must be borne in mind that all the
Petitioners are Business Houses engaged in such business activities
for a considerable period of time. Therefore, such commercial
ventures on their part appears to be primarily speculative which is
always exposed to the vagaries of policy variations, which may
come in way of any domestic and/or International Contract/(s).
However, the legal framework available in our country is both
adequate and sufficient to address issues of violations of rights, if
any, arising out of such changes in the policy. Moreover, in light of
our observations above, in our considered view, the actions of the
8
. (2008) 1 SCC 683
Page 38 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
Respondents, are well within the parameters and confines of
Article 14 of the Constitution.
83.The Petitioners before us have placed due reliance on Article
19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India as they would urge that the
Impugned Notification has infringed their fundamental right so
guaranteed. We have considered the same. The policy decision
arrived at, conditionally prohibits exports under the Impugned
Notification, which operates prospectively. The decision is taken
considering that sugar is an agricultural commodity of mass
consumption. The domestic availability and the pricing of such
sugar have a bearing on the production, manufacture, and
consumption of such essential commodity in the country. Thus, the
element of supervening national/public interest is clearly
discernible. Article 19(1)(g) mandates reasonable restrictions and
is not absolute. This would apply with equal force in the cases
before us.
84.Mr. Rastogi, learned counsel for the Petitioners has tendered
a compilation of various decisions much after the Petition was
reserved for judgment. However, no submissions were advanced on
the relevance and applicability of these judgments to the facts and
circumstances of the present case. Having gone through the said
decisions, we are of the view that the same are couched in
different and distinct facts. Accordingly, these would have no
application to the cases before us. In view thereof, to avoid
prolixity, we have not dealt with each decision separately.
Page 39 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
V. Conclusion:
85.Legitimate expectation is not an enforceable right, more
particularly in the context of a well-reasoned policy decision. The
only exception, in our view, to warrant interference would be when
such decision suffers from the vice of arbitrariness so as to be hit
by Article 14 of the Constitution. We do not find such exception to
be applicable in the cases before us.
86.We find it pertinent to note that these are cases where the
legitimate expectation as pleaded by the Petitioners cannot be
placed at a pedestal higher than that of the producers and
consumers of sugar as far as the domestic sugar industry is
concerned. Protecting the same at the relevant time appears to be
the need of the hour. The Respondents being the competent
authorities acting under the respective statutes are clothed with
the expertise and wherewithal to take an informed decision.
Having observed thus, interference by this Court, in exercise of its
extra ordinary jurisdiction, would not be conducive, in the given
factual complexion.
87.We have noted the projection of the Petitioners that they
would be at the risk of being driven into commercial arbitration at
the behest of private parties/overseas buyers. However, our
judgment would always be guided by law and the applicable legal
principles and not futuristic anticipation of the Petitioners. We
cannot countenance an approach where private commercial
interests and the hardships faced, if any, will undermine policy
Page 40 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
decisions taken in accordance with law, guided by the supervening
public and national interest. Our findings in the judgment are duly
supported by the Latin maxim
salus populi est suprema lex
9
which
translates into welfare of the people being the supreme law.
88.We may clarify that in Writ Petition No. 7850 of 2026
(Sucden India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Others), there is an
attempt to distinguish the facts on the ground that the
representations made by the said Petitioner to the Respondents are
not decided. However, in light of the reasons narrated in our
judgment, such submission would not further the cause of the said
Petitioner, in the given factual complexion. In the said Writ
Petition, the Petitioners also claim to have obtained the Irrevocable
Commercial Letter of Credit. However, the record bears out that
the same has not been obtained prior to the issuance of the
Impugned Notification as the law would mandate, as observed by
us
(Supra). Accordingly, even on this count, the said Petition
warrants no interference by this Court in its exercise of writ
jurisdiction. Similarly, in our considered view, our judgment would
fully cover the case of the Writ Petitioner in the companion Writ
Petition No. 8024 of 2026. (Mosur Dharmalingam Sivakumar vs.
Union of India & Others.)
89.For all the above reasons, we find no merit in the
subject/captioned Petitions, which are Dismissed. Rule is
Discharged. Parties to bear their own costs.
9
“Salus populi est suprema lex’”, Mitra's Legal & Commercial Dictionary, 6th ed.,
Tapash Gan Choudhury ed., (Eastern Law House, 2026), p. 772.
Page 41 of 42
J-WP(L)-18701-2026 (OS).DOCX
90.Before parting with the record, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to observe
that as far as the quantities of sugar retained by the Petitioners is
concerned, they would be at liberty to sell/dispose of the same in
the domestic market. Needless to clarify that such measures if so
taken, would be in accordance with the governing laws including
the Sugar Control Orders, as applicable and subject to the
Petitioners complying with the legal requirements, in this regard.
91.All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this
judgment.
(ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
Page 42 of 42
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....