- (1.) A writ, petition was moved by the appellant in the year 1992 before a learned judge of this Court for setting aside an order of revalidation of licences limiting and/or restricting the import of goods mentioned under Paragraph 138 of the 1983-84 Import and Export Policy to only those items which were listed in Appendix 3 and Appendix 5 and Part A of the Import Export Policy for the year 1990-93. The said application was however dismissed by a learned single judge of this Court on 1st of December, 1992 holding that since there was a drastic change in the fiscal policy the question of grant of leave as was prevalent in the year 1983-84 could not arise at all. After the writ application was dismissed the appellants moved the authorities and requested them to act in terms of their memo dated 1st of January, 1991 and to revalidate licences as decided by them subject to the condition that the import of goods under Paragraph 138 of 1983-84 Policy would be confined to only those items which were currently listed in Appendix 3 and Appendix 5, Part A of the Import and Export Policy 1990-93. It appears that subsequently a letter was received by the appellants from the respondents that in the light of the judgment of the High Court passed in the writ petition, the request for revalidation of the licences could not be entertained. In order to clear such confusion the appellant made an application for clarification of the order dated 1st December, 1992 passed by a learned single judge of this court to the effect that the said order would not prevent the respondents from revalidating the licences under the Import and Export Policy 1990-93 in terms of their own decision contained in the memo dated 1st of January, 1991. The aforesaid application for clarification was however, rejected by the learned single judge by his order dated 17th of November, 1994. Against this order of the learned single judge rejecting the application for clarification of the earlier order passed by the learned Single Judge the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
(2.) WE have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant we have carefully perused the materials on records including the orders passed by the learned single judge in respect of the prayer made by the appellant before him. In our view the learned single judge rightly rejected the said application for modification of his earlier order as we find that the revalidation of the licenses of the appellant is not possible under the law now prevailing. In our view, the Government is entitled to make policy every year by looking into and considering the exigency of the situation and if a policy is changed, nobody can place his right or claim his right on the basis of the old one. No one has a vested right to this effect if the Government is entitled to change the policy in accordance with the situation as well as under the circumstances as it exists. Apart from that there is no question of interfering with the policy of the Government by way of a writ application. Consequently, this appeal has no merit. The appeal is treated in the day's list. The appeal and the application are dismissed accordingly.;