Zipper Association of India Vs. Government of India - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
customs - free transferability of licences - articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of constitution of india and section 11-b of customs act, 1962 - writ petition filed challenging free transferability of replenishment licences issued for import of zip fasteners under import and export policy - policy forms an inseparable part of overall economic policy of central government aiming promotion of exports from country to maximum level - free transferability of said licences plays complementary role in overall economic policy of state - held, no violation of article 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21. - motor vehicles act (59 of 1988)section 149 (2): [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] insurers entitlement to defend the action joint appeal by insured and insurer - held, the language employed in enacting sub-section (2) of section 149 appears to be plain and simple and there is no ambiguity in it. it shows that when an insurer is impleaded and has been given notice of the case, it is entitled to defend the action only on grounds enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 149 of the act, and no other grounds are available to it. the insurer is not allowed to contest the claim of the injured or heirs of the deceased on other grounds, which are available to the insured. if insurer is permitted to contest the claim on other grounds it would mean adding more grounds of contest to the insurer and will be negation of the intention of the legislature and annihilate mandate of the provisions of sections 170 and 149 of the act. the insured can pursue appeal only after giving up the insurer as the appellant and not otherwise. in the instant case, the insurer has not withdrawn from party array but has remained prosecuting the appeal with the insured on the grounds which are available only to the insured. therefore, the joint appeal as filed by the insured and the insurer is not maintainable. section 166: [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] claim for compensation accident due to mechanical defect in the vehicle held, it is not in dispute that the claimant suffered injuries in an accident, which occurred during the course of his employment, albeit due to his negligence but law does not render him remediless. statutory right is conferred on him, accruing by virtue of his employment under insured to claim compensation under workmens compensation act. the insurer is statutorily duty bound to discharge the liability of the owner of the vehicle, to pay such compensation to the employee, as mandated under the provisions of section 149 of the act. the right of an injured employee or his dependents as the case may be to be compensated, when injury is suffered or death occurs during his employment, is recognised not only under workmens compensation act, but also under benevolent provisions under section 166 and 167 of the m.v. act. the right of driver to seek compensation is not restricted only to the workmens compensation act, it has been enlarged to enable such person to seek just compensation (sections 166 and 168), conferring upon him the right of election engrafted under section 167 of the act to choose either of the two forum. the only defence which the insurer could take is limit of its liability as enumerated under section 147 of the act, leading to contest, inter alia, only between insured and insurer and does not impact claimants right to recover the compensation determined by the tribunal which crystallizes into enforceable right against both. in the instant case, the claimant/driver has exercised right of election under section 167 of the act to seek compensation under section 166 of the act resulting in award passed by the tribunal. therefore, the insured and the insurer have no escape but to discharge the said award as directed. undisputedly, in this case as deduced for proved facts, the vehicle in question was not properly maintained by the owner and despite faulty brake system, the claimant had undertaken the hazardous journey to his peril at the behest of and at the instruction of the owner. the owner is therefore, tortfeasor. section 168: [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] insurers limit of liability - held, it is well settled that the liability of the insurance company for payment of compensation can be statutory or contractual. is for the insurance company to show that the insurance policy was a statutory policy and not a contractual policy to restrict its liability. that issue was neither raised before the tribunal nor is raised in this appeal requiring decision. thus, if at all the insurer has any valid ground to restrict its liability, it can proceed against the insured but firstly it has to discharge the award as required under section 149 (1) of the act. where the owner/insured has failed to maintain the vehicle as per prescribed safety standards and has caused the claimant to drive the vehicle with mechanical defects, the owner would be the tortfeasor and the claimant can maintain a petition seeking compensation under the provisions of the act, instead of seeking compensation under the workmens compensation act. on facts, held, the material evidence on record, particularly, with regard to the income of the claimant, his age, medical evidence and the evidence relating to pecuniary loss has not been considered by the tribunal in the correct perspective, which has resulted in passing of the impugned award, disproportionate to the pecuniary loss and the loss of future income of the victim. the settled principles governing determination of compensation has been given a go-bye. compensation of rs.4,15,150/- awarded by the tribunal was enhanced to rs.8,20,000/-. - it is an accepted fact that the zip fasteners made indigenously do not stand competition with those which are manufactured abroad in several other countries like korea, hong kong etc. 7. an analysis of the above said rival contentions raised by the parties clearly shows that the controversy in fact is only to the extent of the free transferability of the rep licences not restricted to 'actual users' in regard to the zip fasteners as laid down in para 183(1) of the import and export policy 1988-91. it may not be out of place to reproduce hereunder the definition of the term 'actual user' as given in para 6(1) of the said policy which is as follows :6.(1) 'actual user' means a person, who applied for/secures a licence for the import of any item or an allotment of an imported item required for his own use, and not for business or trade in it. a glance at the above reveals the fact that the import of zip fasteners is allowed upto a certain percentage of the imported replenishment entitlement of the said product in regard to several items like pvc purses, bags and travel goods, foot-wear, heavy leather goods like saddlery items, leather garments, cotton textiles, woollen textiles, ready-made garments, hosiery and knitwear etc. this point clearly emerges from a discussion of the above as it is evident that when the material if available in the market by having been imported by whomsoever it may be it will cut down a lot of time and effort of the part of the registered exporter to import the products by himself. by implication it is argued that similar restriction of the zip fasteners actually being used has not been imposed in regard to other products like foot wear, heavy leather goods, purses, hand bags etc. i do not think that there is much force in this argument for the reason that a check has been properly imposed in the case of textiles because of the nature of the industry itself which will entail a supervision of the quality and quality of zips that are used in the manufactured product of such textiles whereas in connection with other items like foot-wear, hand bags, leather goods etc. , the zip fasteners of the best quality are bound to be used on a comparatively lavish scale to render the leather goods, hand bags etc. the foreign market being a competitive one, it is essential that the goods exported by us should be comparable in quality and utility to the best as available in the market. there may be ready made garments made out of textiles or leather goods like hand bags, foot wear, sadlery etc. it may very well be true that the court while exercising its jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution in a case of this nature should exercise a certain amount of judicial restraint on its part to deal with such matters of technical nature involving problems of high finance in the national and international economy but it cannot be said that such areas of economic financing are 'ipso facto' immune from the over-all power of judicial review by this court. it reads as follows :in the utilities, tax and economic regulation cases, there are good reasons for judicial self-restraint if not judicial deference to legislative judgment. 10. the ratio to be drawn from a study of the above cases is that the courts will not hesitate to interfere in the policy decision taken in the economic field if they are patently illegal or arbitrary or have been taken in a mala fide manner but a certain amount of judicial restraint is called for in dealing with these matters of a technical nature which are finalised only after taking the best available professional and technical advice on the matter. in any case, i have considered the question of the free transferability of licences under para 183 of the import and export policy of 1988-91 in regard to the zip fasteners on the merits of the case as well and i have come to the conclusion that the policy does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity of a basic nature which may result in the negation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner-association under articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the constitution of india.1. zipper association of india, hyderabad, represented by its president, sudhir sanghi, is the petitioner herein. the petitioner-association prays for the issue of a writ or direction declaring the contents of para 183 of chapter xv of the import policy registered exporters for 1988-91 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the constitution of india or in the alternative directing the respondents to prohibit transfer of replenishment licences (which will, hereinafter, be referred to as 'rep licences' for short) issued for import of zip fasteners and parts thereof to any person other than those who require them for the manufacture of the goods exported. 2. the petitioner-association enjoys a membership of 150, spread throughout the country. they are all manufacturers of zip fasteners, both metallic and non-metallic, indigenously and sell the product within the country. the manufacture of zip fasteners is one of the items which has been reserved in the small scale industries sector. it is averred in the affidavit filed by the president of the petitioner-association that the basic raw materials required for the manufacturer of non-metallic zip fasteners are petro-chemical based and petro-chemical products are costlier in india than those in foreign countries. the cost of production of such zip fasteners, therefore, is higher than that of the foreign made zip fasteners. this has given rise to an illegal influx of the zip fasteners from outside the country and has resulted in crippling the indigenous industry. as a step to end this problem, the government of india, by notification no. 205/84, dated 20-7-1984, invoked the provisions of section 11-b of the customs act, 1962, and declared zip fasteners as a notified item thereby putting a ban on illegal importation of zip fasteners. the petitioner-association further asserts that the imports under rep licences issued by the 2nd respondent-chief controller of imports and exports, new delhi, is operating to the detriment of the indigenous industry. 3. the object this writ petition is to challenge the import policy for registered exporters in chapter xv of the import and export policy for the year 1988-91 on the ground that it is threatening the very survival of the indigenous zip fasteners manufacturing industry. it would not be out of place to re-produce hereunder para 164 of the said import and export policy which is in the following terms : '164. the object of this scheme is to provide to the registered exporters by way of import replenishment, the essential inputs required in the manufacture of the products exported and also to allow certain flexibilities to enable diversification of the export products.' it may be noticed that the import policy for registered exporters has been promulgated with a view to replenish the stocks of essential inputs to the registered exporters and is supposed to be aimed at the promotion of exports from the country. under para 166(1) of the import and export policy the extent of import replenishment permissible against each product enumerated in column 2 of appendix 17 as set out in column 3 is provided. the percentages enumerated therein are applicable in the case of exports made on or after 1-4-1988. in the case exports made on or after 1-4-1988 of products not included in appendix 17 and appendix 12 the import replenishment rate is there per cent of the total for f.o.b. value of exports. under para 183(1) of chapter xv of the said policy the transferability of rep licences is mentioned in the following terms : transferability of rep licences '183.(1) the rep licence will be issued in the name of the registered exporter only and will not be subject to 'actual user' conditions. a licence holder may transfer the licence to any other person. the licence holder or such transferee may import the goods permitted therein. (2) the transfer of a rep licence will not require any endorsement or permission from the licensing authority, i.e., it will be governed by the ordinary law. accordingly, clearance of the goods covered by a rep licence issued under this policy will be allowed by the customs authorities on production by the transferee of the only document of transfer of the licence concerned in his name. whenever a rep licence is transferred, the transfer should give a formal letter to the transferee, giving full particulars regarding number, date and value of the licence transferred and the name and address of the transferee and complete description of the import items for which the licence is transferred.' the main grievance of the petitioner-association is that para 183(1) of chapter xv of the import and export policy, quoted above, provides for free transferability of rep licences and is not restricted to the actual users alone. the transfer of rep licences to 'any other person' is resisted by the petitioners on the ground that this entails free transferability of licences in favour of persons who are not registered exporters and who have made a regular trade of their own by importing zip fasteners on the strength of their being transferee of the rep licences. in other words, the case of the petitioner-association is that the transferability of rep licences should be restricted only to actual users and not to other persons who are not connected with the manufacture of export products or diversification of export products. this argument is further elucidated by the point that the term 'any other person' should be read in consonance with the object of the policy and must be construed in a manner which would not result in the negation of the policy propounded by the central government. when the zip fasteners are imported by the trade and not by the manufacturer for his own use, then it becomes a commercial proposition for the trade to make quick profits on the investment rather than to utilise such products in the manufacture of the export goods. 4. it may be seen that zip fasteners come under appendix 2 part-b under list of restricted items. at s. no. 131 of the said appendix 2 part-b it is provided that fasteners - snap and zip (including in coil form) and components thereof cannot be imported except under 'actual user' conditions under a specific import licence granted by the chief controller of imports and exports, new delhi. therefore, the only way in which the zip fasteners are being imported in the country is by way of rep licences issued to the registered exporters for augmenting the essential inputs required in the manufacture of the products which are to be exported. 5. a counter-affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent in this case setting out, in detail, the implications involved in the issue of rep licences in regard to zip fasteners. as seen earlier, what is challenged in this writ petition is not the issue of the rep licence in regard to the zip fasteners but the free transferability of rep licences under para 183(1) and (2) of the import and export policy. under the said para 183 a licence holder may transfer the licence to another person along with a formal letter to the transferee giving full particulars regarding the number, date and value of the licence transferred and the clearance of the goods are given in the name of the transferee without any further ado. 6. the main contention raised to the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent is that the free transferability has been provided keeping in view the fact that the promotion of exports is one of the corner stones of the import and export policy 1988-91 promulgated by the government of india. the free transferability ensures easy availability of essential imported inputs to the exporters and obviate the necessity of applying for supplementary licences by them. the replenishment scheme has been made as a balancing mechanism to replenish the raw material used in the manufacture of the product exported. it is further stated that since the item in question falls in appendix 2 part-b of the restricted imported products, the only other way to allow import is against supplementary licences which are issued on the basis of specific decisions taken in a meeting headed by the chief controller of exports and imports. however, as a matter of general practice, supplementary import licences for the item in appendix 2 part-b are not normally issued and over a period of three years no such supplementary licences had indeed been issued in the case of zip fasteners. the government of india has regulated the policy for registered exporters on the basis of various considerations, such as balance of payments situation, domestic and international market conditions, the competition and acceptability of the indigenous products etc. the import of zip fasteners is allowed only against export of garments, leather and leather goods, leather garments and sport goods etc., which have a turn over of hundreds of crores in fetching foreign exchange. out of the total turn over, the import of zip fasteners constitutes only a very small fraction of the total value of the exports of the aforesaid items. the provision for import of zip fasteners on the basis of rep licence has been made with a view on the quality control of the export products and to ensure their excellence and acceptance in foreign markets. it is an accepted fact that the zip fasteners made indigenously do not stand competition with those which are manufactured abroad in several other countries like korea, hong kong etc. it is, therefore, contended in the counter-affidavit that this policy does not pose any threat to indigenous industry at all and on the other hand it ensures free availability of the product for the persons who are registered exporters. the object of the policy is that the exporter need not be bothered about obtaining supplementary licence of arranging imports himself and may concentrate his attention on production by using the inputs which may be freely available to him in the market for the manufacture of the export goods. 7. an analysis of the above said rival contentions raised by the parties clearly shows that the controversy in fact is only to the extent of the free transferability of the rep licences not restricted to 'actual users' in regard to the zip fasteners as laid down in para 183(1) of the import and export policy 1988-91. it may not be out of place to reproduce hereunder the definition of the term 'actual user' as given in para 6(1) of the said policy which is as follows : '6.(1) 'actual user' means a person, who applied for/secures a licence for the import of any item or an allotment of an imported item required for his own use, and not for business or trade in it. thus, in the case of an industrial undertaking, the item concerned shall be utilised for the manufacturing processes or operations conducted within its authorised premises (or made available to jobbing units or other units outside for intermediate processing only as part of such production effort). in the non-industrial category, such as hospitals, research and development units or any other institutions, commercial establishments and individuals, the concerned item shall be utilised for its/his own use i.e., for the purpose for which the item was sought for import.' if the transfer is restricted to 'actual user', then the idea of free transferability provided under para 183 will cease to operate. but the issue thus arising will have to be examined in the general context of the policy laid down for registered exporters with a view to promote the exports from the country to the maximum limit. under chapter xv import policy for registered exporters has been laid down. the object of the scheme to is to provide to the registered exporters by way of import replenishment the essential inputs required in the manufacture of the products exported and also to allow certain flexibilities to enable diversification of the export products. in para 167 the categories of registered exporters are given., viz., (1) merchant-exporters, (2) manufacturer-exporters and (3) export houses (including trading houses). the extent of import replenishment permissible against each product is enumerated in col. 2 of appendix 17 as set out in col. 3 thereof. in appendix 17, which deals with import policy for registered exporters, there are several items dealing with import entitlement of zip fasteners and parts. a glance at the above reveals the fact that the import of zip fasteners is allowed upto a certain percentage of the imported replenishment entitlement of the said product in regard to several items like pvc purses, bags and travel goods, foot-wear, heavy leather goods like saddlery items, leather garments, cotton textiles, woollen textiles, ready-made garments, hosiery and knitwear etc. in appendix 17 in col. 3 the import replenishment percentage is given and in col. 4 the percentage of import entitlement of the zip fasteners or the parts thereof in mentioned. the main object of the import rep scheme is to provide the registered exporters by way of import replenishment the imported materials required in the manufacture of the products which are to be exported or have already been exported. the rep licences are not subject to actual user conditions and are freely transferable without any endorsement or permission from the licensing authority. the free transferability of the rep licences, therefore, makes the product readily available in the local market and the registered exporter is saved the trouble of applying for supplementary licences or using the rep licences, as the case may be, for the import of the zip fasteners. this point clearly emerges from a discussion of the above as it is evident that when the material if available in the market by having been imported by whomsoever it may be it will cut down a lot of time and effort of the part of the registered exporter to import the products by himself. therefore, there seems to be much force in the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the overall policy of the central government seems to be to give boost to the exports by allowing a small percentage of the inputs which are used in the manufacture of such goods to be imported freely under rep licences. it has been urged by sri. t. anantha babu, the learned counsel for the petitioner-association that it is only in connection with items 320 to 322 under sl. no. k1 to k9 dealing with textiles of various kinds that it has been provided that 2% of the import rep entitlement will be given against the export of made up articles in which zip fasteners have been actually used. by implication it is argued that similar restriction of the zip fasteners actually being used has not been imposed in regard to other products like foot wear, heavy leather goods, purses, hand bags etc. i do not think that there is much force in this argument for the reason that a check has been properly imposed in the case of textiles because of the nature of the industry itself which will entail a supervision of the quality and quality of zips that are used in the manufactured product of such textiles whereas in connection with other items like foot-wear, hand bags, leather goods etc., the zip fasteners of the best quality are bound to be used on a comparatively lavish scale to render the leather goods, hand bags etc., saleable in the foreign competitive market. any way, nothing can turn out on the technicality of this argument as it can safely be presumed that the authorities have imposed a condition of actual use of 2% of the imported zip fasteners in case of textile goods, taking into consideration the modalities of the trade prevalent in case of such goods. furthermore, it must be kept in view that the import rep entitlement is in many cases only upto a small percentage of the total user of the zip fasteners in a particular product and the percentage of import entitlement is further cut down because it allows the licence to import only a small percentage of the rep entitlement quota. 8. mr. t. anantha babu, learned counsel for the petitioner-association has relied upon the decisions reported in ramana v. i.a. authority of india- : (1979)iillj217sc , m/s. kasuri lal v. state of j & k : [1980]3scr1338 and maneka gandhi v. union of india : [1978]2scr621 in support of his general proposition that an executive authority cannot exercise it discretion in an arbitrary manner which may lead to the deprivation of the rights of the citizens for equal treatment and fair play. the above decisions of the supreme court no doubt lay down the principle that the government is not and should not be as free as an individual in exercising its discretion in an arbitrary manner or in selecting the recipients for its largess. the government will be subject to restraints, inherent in its position in a democratic society and cannot afford to act in an arbitrary and capricious fashion. but the question is whether the issue of rep licences in this case results in any infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner-association vested in them under articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the constitution of india or whether the petitioners are put at a decided disadvantage in the matter of running their own trade of the manufacture of zip fasteners in india. the simple answer to this question seems to be that there is nothing which prevents the petitioner-association also from securing the rep licence as it is freely available in the market and they can also import the zip fasteners in their own right as is being done by others. it is difficult to see any charge of discrimination or inequality before law being brought home in this case. when the licences have been made freely transferable in the open market and are being utilised by certain other persons in the trade, there is no embargo on the petitioner-association also to step into the trade and to avail themselves of this opportunity. 9. sri. k. jagannadha rao, learned standing counsel for central government, has laid great stress on the fact that the import and export policy of 1988-91 has been promulgated by the government of india with great care and caution after taking into consideration the various factors involved in the matter. insofar as the present problem is concerned, argues the learned standing counsel, the transferability of rep licences has been ordained with the specific purpose of giving a boost to the exports and to relieve the registered exporters from the botheration and effort of securing supplementary licences or utilising their own rep licences for the import of zip fasteners. he further states that under the present system there will be a ready supply of imported zip fasteners available to the registered customers which can be purchased freedly in the market thereby facilitating the export of manufactured goods after utilising the zip fasteners in the products. it is also urged that the government of india has allowed only a small percentage of the total rep entitlement by way of entitlement quota of import under the rep licences and a check is maintained on all such products which are exported to ensure that they come up to the required standards from the point of quality, control and excellency of goods. the foreign market being a competitive one, it is essential that the goods exported by us should be comparable in quality and utility to the best as available in the market. the zip fasteners of these products form a vital component to ensure the excellence of the goods on which they are used. there may be ready made garments made out of textiles or leather goods like hand bags, foot wear, sadlery etc. it is for this purpose that the rep licences have been made freely transferable under para 183 of the import and export policy. he further emphasised the fact that this policy has been in vogue since 1978 and has been functioning smoothly uptil now. when a question was raised by the zipper association of india with the minister of commerce, an answer was sent vide letter dated 1st of june, 1987 by the minister stating that the policy for import of zip fasteners is already highly restrictive. its import is covered in the list of restricted items under appendix 2 part-b of the import and export policy for 1985-88. in order to meet the quantity requirement of the foreign buyer and to achieve the export target it was found necessary to enhance the import replenishment rate against rep licence. the suggestion to impose 'actual user condition' on import of zips against rep licence was turned down by the ministry of commerce on the ground that it would not be possible in the overall interest of the import and export policy of the country to impose such a condition for the import of the zip fasteners in the country. the learned standing counsel for the central government has further placed square reliance upon a decision in l.i.c. of india v. escorts ltd., which has come to be known as 'escorts case- : 1986(8)ecc189 ' to emphasise the point that problems of high finances do not fall within the purview of the court for the reason that the court lacks the expertise to deal with such problems. 'a fortiorari' it is argued that the question of the import and export policy matters cannot be considered in the writ petition as it deals with delicate problems of import and export of goods from india and the policy has been laid down after careful consideration of several problems involved in the matter. it may very well be true that the court while exercising its jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution in a case of this nature should exercise a certain amount of judicial restraint on its part to deal with such matters of technical nature involving problems of high finance in the national and international economy but it cannot be said that such areas of economic financing are 'ipso facto' immune from the over-all power of judicial review by this court. in fact, what the supreme court has held is that the matter must be viewed with due care and caution and it is only when absolutely necessary that such matters can be interfered with by the courts. in union of india v. c. damani & co. : air1980sc1149 a dictum to this effect is found in the judgment of v. r. krishna iyer j in the following words : '... prima facie, national policy in this area should not be interfered with by courts unless compelled by glaring unconstitutionality.'a dictum of frankfurter j in morey v. dond (354 us 457) is worth reading here to indicate the parameters of interference by the courts in matters of this nature. it reads as follows : 'in the utilities, tax and economic regulation cases, there are good reasons for judicial self-restraint if not judicial deference to legislative judgment. the legislature after all has the affirmative responsibility. the courts have only the power to destroy, not to reconstruct. when these are added to the complexity of economic regulation, the uncertainty, the liability to error, the bewildering conflict of the experts and the number of times the judges have been overruled by events-self-limitation can be seen to be the path to judicial wisdom and institutional prestige and stability.' in state of m.p. v. nandlal jaiswal : [1987]1scr1 the supreme court was dealing with the question of grant of licences for construction of distilleries for manufacture and supply of country liquor which was alleged to be in violation of articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the constitution. it was observed by the supreme court that having regard to the nature of the trade or business the court would be slow to interfere with the policy laid down by the state government for grant of licences for manufacture and sale of liquor. the court would, in view of the inherently pernicious nature of the commodity, allow a large measure of latitude to the state government in determining its policy of regulating manufacture and trade in liquor. it is further observed that the court must while adjudging the constitutional validity of an executive decision relating to economic matters grant a certain measure of freedom or 'play in the joints' to the executive. the court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the state government merely because it feels another policy decision would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical. the court can interfere only if the policy decision is patently arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide. 10. the ratio to be drawn from a study of the above cases is that the courts will not hesitate to interfere in the policy decision taken in the economic field if they are patently illegal or arbitrary or have been taken in a mala fide manner but a certain amount of judicial restraint is called for in dealing with these matters of a technical nature which are finalised only after taking the best available professional and technical advice on the matter. in any case, i have considered the question of the free transferability of licences under para 183 of the import and export policy of 1988-91 in regard to the zip fasteners on the merits of the case as well and i have come to the conclusion that the policy does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity of a basic nature which may result in the negation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner-association under articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the constitution of india. an objective analysis of the policy in question leads to the conclusion that it forms an inseparable part of the overall economic policy of the central government which aims at the promotion of the exports from the country to a maximum level and the free transferability of rep licences in regard to zip fasteners plays a complimentary role to such an overall economic policy of the state. in this view of the matter the writ petition is dismissed, but, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.