Kerala High Court
K.L. Mathew And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 29 January, 1973
Equivalent citations: AIR1974KER4, AIR 1974 KERALA 4
JUDGMENT G. Viswanatha Iyer, J.
1. These two original petitions are filed by proprietors of two cashew factories in Quilon District. They seek a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction calling for and quashing the communications refusing to allot imported raw cashewnuts to the petitioners, to carry on the manufacturing or processing business in their factories and also for a writ of mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent, the Cashew Corporation of India Limited, to allot imported raw cashewnuts to them.
2. The petitioner in O. P. No. 3435 of 1972 is the proprietor of a cashew factory and is engaged in the processing of raw cashewnuts and in the exporting of processed cashew kernels. His factory was started in 1964 with a labour strength of about 100 workers. This strength is being increased and to provide employment for these workers at least 750 tons of raw cashewnuts is necessary per annum. There are about 70 manufacturer-exporters mostly concentrated in Quilon District doing this business and the indigenous production of raw cashewnuts in India is hardly sufficient to meet 30% of the demand of the factories. The rest of the raw cashewnut requirement is met by imports from African countries. Due to paucity of finance and other reasons the petitioner was not able previously to directly import cashewnut and was therefore carrying on the business with indigenous raw nuts. To improve his export turnover and to give work to his existing labour he has to process more nuts into cashew kernels and for that he has to depend on imported cashewnuts only.
3. The petitioner in O. P. No. 3457 of 1972 is also a proprietor of a cashew factory engaged in the business of processing cashewnuts into cashew kernels and exporting them to foreign countries. The factory previously belonged to one N. Ramachandra Reddiar who was carrying on this business in this factory from 1948. He was regularly importing cashewnuts till August 1967 and conducting the business and on account of domestic troubles the factory was closed for some time until the petitioner purchased it in 1971. Before purchasing this factory the petitioner was carrying on the business by taking factories on hire and processing and exporting cashewnuts. His export turn over was over 8 lakhs in 1970-71 and over 10 lakhs in 1971-72. In May 1971 he purchased this factory. The petitioner has a labour strength of 500 workers and he requires about 1500 tons of raw cashewnuts per annum. He has also to depend on imported cashewnuts to continue the business as indigenous nuts are not available.
4. Before 1970 raw cashewnuts were being imported on what is known as on open General Licence System. Subject to availability of foreign exchange any person can import raw cashewnuts on satisfying the conditions prescribed by the Imports and Exports Control Act, Rules and Orders. In course of time the Central Government found that this import system has created unhealthy competitions among the importers leading to a progressive rise in the cost of imports. The cashew industry had grown enormously and at the same time was dominated by trade interests with ready access to bank finance and the processing units set up in various places were not getting enough raw nuts for processing. Very little attempt was being made to collect the indigenous raw nuts for processing and export and more than three-fourth of the requirements of the trade was found depending on the import. In order to meet this increase in demand for imported raw nuts and in order to be in a better bargaining position vis-a-vis the exporting countries and to ensure adequate supply of raw nuts at reasonable prices the Central Government decided to canalise the import of raw cashewnuts through the Cashew Corporation of India Limited with effect from 1st September, 1970. In August. 1970 the Cashew Corporation of India Limited was formed as a subsidiary company to the State Trading Corporation Limited registered under the Indian Companies Act. All its shares are vested in the State Trading Corporation Limited. After this date the issue of licence to import raw nuts on Open Licence System was stopped except when applied for by the Cashew Corporation of India Limited. Thereafter that company began importing raw cashew nuts in terms of the import policy prescribed by Central Government from time to time. As per that policy statement the users were directed to apply to the company for allotment.
5. The petitioners applied to the 2nd Respondent for allotment of imported raw cashewnuts for processing and for export. They were informed by the 2nd Respondent -- by letters dated 14-10-1971 (Ext. P1). 14-2-1972 (Ext. P6) and 6-6-1972 (Ext. P8) in O. P. No. 3455 of 1972 and by letters dated 21-7-1971 (Ext. P3), 31-8-71 (Ext. P4). 19-2-1972 (Ext. P8) and 25-2-1972 (Ext. P9) in O. P. No. 3457 of 1972 that they are not entitled to get allotments because as per the policy laid down by the 2nd respondent only those persons who were depending on imported raw cashewnuts during the years 1968, 1969 and till 31st August 1970 are eligible for allotment. The petitioners do not come within, this provision. Again according to the policy adopted by the 2nd Respondent as a condition for allotment of imported raw cashewnuts an undertaking that the entire quantity of the raw cashewnuts imported and allotted to the factories will be processed and exported must be given and another 20 per cent of this quantity must be purchased from the indigenous market processed and also exported. Only if these conditions are satisfied that these factories will be allotted imported raw cashewnuts. This means that all those who want to get allotment of imported raw cashewnuts must procure indigenous raw cashewnuts and process them to make up the 20 per cent of the allotment of the imported raw nuts. The petitioners who want to carry on this business are denied allotment of imported raw nuts and so if they want to carry on their business they have to compete with the allottees in the purchase of indigenous raw nuts. That means they are faced with acute competition from these allottees in the indigenous market making them unable to carry on the cashew business. This practically is an attempt to stifle those who do not get allotted imported raw nuts. This in turn is likely to create a monopoly to those who were in the field before 1970 and those who come into the field later cannot succeed in the carrying on the business. So, the denial of allotment to the petitioners is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that this allotment system of the 2nd Respondent is arbitrary, beyond its powers and is also discriminative.
6. The 2nd Respondent has filed a counter affidavit in answer to the contentions raised by the petitioners. According to the 2nd Respondent, it is open to them to refuse allotment of imported raw cashewnuts under paragraph 97 (5) (a) of Chapter IV of the Import Control Rules and Procedure. They have adopted this procedure for allotment of raw cashewnuts in consultation with the trade and the Government of India. According to them, in the context of constraints in supply position and unregulated additions to installed capacity a method of rationing was inevitable. Discussions were therefore held with the established associations of the cashew industry and the trade interests to obtain their views in regard to the basis of allocation of imported cashewnuts. Various views were expressed as regards the procedure to be followed in the allocation of nuts at the discussion and eventually an equitable method of rationing in the light of the objectives of canalisation was evolved for determining the quota. The primary considerations that were taken into account were:
(a) Minimum dislocation in the existing pattern of trade and industry.
(b) Due recognition to the element of export performance to maintain and augment the level of exports.
(c) Safeguarding against any switch over from indigenous nuts to imported nuts.
(d) Due recognition to the necessity for processing in duly licensed units. Only those who had participated in the import and export business during the years 1968 and 1969 and had processing capacity were taken as eligible for allocations of imported raw cashewnuts and the quota for each was determined on the basis of the lowest of the quantities calculated in relation to the best imports during 1968 and 1969. These allottees were also required to undertake to effect exports of kernels corresponding to the raw nuts allotted to them. Later on, a modification of the criteria for entitlement of imported nuts was approved by the Board of Directors of the 2nd respondent on the basis of the discussions with the trade representatives. As a result of this discussion, individual units set UP in 1970 before canalisation and also the capacity of other units which were already in the field were also taken into account and a re-allocation was made taking into account the figures of import-export performance during the years 1968 and 1969 and the first eight months of 1970. This allocation has worked satisfactorily and industry has shown better performance both in the processing and in the level of exports in 1971-1972. So, the same policy is continued in 1972 as well. The Cashew Corporation of India Ltd., is a wholly subsidiary of the State Trading Corporation of India Limited. The allottees are also required to give an undertaking that they will export quantities of kernels equivalent to the raw cashewnuts allotted to them plus 20% procured from the local market. The petitioner in O. P. No. 3457 of 1972 purchased the factory only in May, 1971 after the distribution policy was made known to the trade in November, 1970. That petitioner should have known that the factory having not worked in 1967-68 is not eligible for any allocation. The denial of any allotment of imported raw cashewnuts to the petitioner is perfectly legal and sustainable on valid grounds and there is no violation of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. It is finally contended that the second Respondent being a company registered under the Companies Act no writ will lie against it.
7. The petitioners have in the light of the various contentions raised by the 2nd Respondent regarding the maintainability of the writ against it sought permission to amend the writ petitions to include a prayer for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ directing the first Respondent to allot or to cause the 2nd Respondent to allot to the petitioners imported raw cashewnuts sufficient to carry on the manufacturing activities in their factories. Those petitions were allowed. The petitioners have also filed a reply affidavit to the various contentions raised by the 2nd Respondent Tn the reply affidavit it is stated that the policy of distribution adopted by the 2nd Respondent is against the provisions of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947 and the Import Control Order. 1955. The 2nd Respondent is only an agency coming under Clause 6 (c) of the Import Control Order, 1955 through which the import and distribution of raw cashewnuts is canalised. As such, it is only a nominee of the Government of India to carry out the specific function of import and distribution of raw cashewnuts statutorilv directed to be carried out by the Control Act and the Control Order referred to above. Being a nominee of the Government of India it is not open to the 2nd Respondent to arbitrarily allot or refuse to allot the imported commodity. The provision in the distribution policy adopted by the 2nd Respondent that the allocation of imported raw Cashewnuts will be made only to those who had import and export performance during the years 1968-69 has nothing to do with the objectives of the Act or the Order. The object of the Act was only to canalise the import. Previously, raw cashewnuts were being imported under the Open General Licence System. This led to unhealthy competition and the foreign exchange resources were either wasted or misused. It was not possible to bargain with the foreign traders for a reasonable price for the commodities. To get over this the. Government decided to canalise the import. The obiect was never to restrict the use of imported raw cashewnuts by the processing units in India. The canalising agency, whether the Government or the nominee of the Government, cannot, on importing the raw cashewnuts, refuse to allot to the actual users all imported raw cashewnuts for processing and exporting. The import policy statement of the Government of India clearly stated that the 2nd Respondent must release the imported raw cashewnuts to the actual users. The petitioners being actual users are entitled to get an allotment of the imported cashewnut. The fact that they were not importing raw cashewnuts during the years 1968-69 or the first eight months of 1970 is no ground to deny them an allotment. The factories which the petitioners are running now were processing and exporting cashew kernels during the earlier years as well. The restriction in the distribution of imported raw cashewnuts is unreasonable and beyond the powers of Respondents 1 and 2 under the Act and the Order referred to above. This distribution also virtually destroys the processing and exporting activities of the petitioner. Under the guise of this distribution what is really done is that the non-allottees are effectively prevented from carrying on the business, which is not the object of the Import Control Act or the Order. It is again contended that this policy was not being uniformly followed because alter 1970 the Kerala Government constituted a Company called the 'Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Limited' and this company took over some of the factories Previously closed down during the years 1964 and 1963 and to this Corporation the 2nd Respondent has allotted imported raw cashewnuts though the said Corporation does not satisfy any of the conditions mentioned in the distribution policy alleged in the counter-affidavit. Again, the 2nd Respondent who is only a canalising agency under the Control Order, 1955 has begun to carry on the processing work. It cannot against its own policy of allotment begin to carry on the business of processing of these raw cashewnuts for export. In such circumstances, and for all the reasons, the petitioners contend that the distribution policy adopted by the 2nd Respondent as nominee of the 1st Respondent is arbitrary and discriminatory.
8. During the course of the argument of these writ petitions counsel for the 2nd Respondent sought permission to file an additional counter-affidavit to answer the additional facts mentioned in the petitioners' reply affidavit and that permission was granted. In the additional counter affidavit the 2nd Respondent admitted the supply of imported raw cashewnuts to the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Limited and also the processing activities carried on by it as an experimental measure. According to the 2nd Respondent, this allotment to the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation is only a temporary ad hoc arrangement to tide over certain labour problems of the Kerala Corporation and that the allotment for that purpose cannot be questioned by the petitioners. The processing activity is only started as an experimental measure to find out the quality of raw nuts imported from sources other than the traditional sources which also cannot be said to be unjustified. For these reasons, the 2nd Respondent sought to sustain their earlier contentions.
9. The first question that arises for determination relates to the character of the functions carried on by the 2nd Respondent and 2nd Respondent's relationship with 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent enacted the Imports and Exports Control Act. 1947, to prohibit, restrict or otherwise control imports and exports. That Act authorised the Central Government to make provision by a notified order for prohibiting, restricting or otherwise controlling the import and export of goods of any specified description. In pursuance to this enactment the Central Government issued the Import Control Order, 1955. Clause 3 of that Order prohibited the Import of any goods of the description specified in Schedule I except and in accordance with a licence granted by the Central Government. Item 20 of Part IV of Schedule I relates to cashewnut. Clause 6 provides for the refusal to grant a licence in certain circumstances. If the Government decides to canalise imports and distribution thereof through a special or specialised apency or channels, the issue of a licence can be refused as per Clause 6 (1) (c) of the Order. Till 31st of August, 1970 cashew-nuts were allowed to be imported on the Open General Licence System. This System was found to create unhealthy competition and wastage of foreign exchange. So, the Government decided to modify the system of importing of cashewnuts. The Government of India, Minstry of Foreign Trade, issued an order on 31st of August. 1970 withdrawing this item from the Open General Licence System. The order is in these terms:--
"GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FOREIGN TRADE IMPORT TRADE CONTROL ORDER NO. 3/70 New Delhi, the 31st August, 1970.
In pursuance of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the Open General Licence No. LXXXVIII published with the Government of India, Ministry of Foreign Trade Imports (Control) Order No. 1/70 dated the 31st March, 1970, namely.
The following entry may be deemed to have been deleted from the Schedule to O. G. L. No. LXXXVIII with immediate effect:--
S. No. Part of the Description I. T. C. Schedule of the goods 20 IV Cashewnuts Sd/- (R. J. Rebello) Chief Controller of Imports & Exports"
10. Simultaneously, a company called the Cashew Corporation of India Ltd. was formed as a subsidiary to the State Trading Corporation of India, another private company set up by the Government of India under the Companies Act, 1956. The shares of this subsidiary company are all held by the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. On forming this company the Government of India, Ministry of Foreign Trade, issued another order dated 31st of August, 1970 by which the import of cashewnuts was canalised throueh the Cashew Corporation of India Ltd. The public notice to this effect published in the Gazette of India is in the following terms:--
"GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FOREIGN TRADE IMPORT TRADE CONTROL PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 131-ITC (PN)/70, New Delhi, the 31st August, 1970. Subject:-- Import of cashewnuts (S. No. 20/IV) Consequent on the removal of Cashewnuts (S. No. 20/IV) from the O. G. L. No. LXXXVIII vide Ministry of Foreign Trade Import Trade Control Order No. 3/70 dated the 31st August, 1970 it has been decided to canalise with immediate effect the import of Cashewnuts (S. No. 20/IV) through the Cashew Corporation of India Ltd.
Sd/-
(R. J. Rebello) Chief Controller of Imports & Exports"
On taking this decision the import trade control policy in respect of this item was stated in the book Import Trade Control Policy commonly called the 'Red Book' In Section 3 of that Book under the heading "List of items the import of which is canalised through the State Trading Agencies" cashewnut is included and it is stated against that entry that the Cashew Corporation of India Ltd. will be the canalising agency and the system of licensing will be "to be released to actual users by the canalising agency". Clause 53 of the Policy Statement further provides that the canalising agency should apply for bulk allocation of foreign exchange and for imports in order to enable it to organise efficient procurement of imported materials for distribution to actual users. The policy, as I said earlier has been formulated with an emphasis on the need for increased production and exports expansion of opportunity for employment, development of small scale industries, with due regard to the fulfilment of the Government's socio-economic objectives. Along with this policy statement the Government of India, Ministry of Foreign Trade, have also published the Import Trade Control Hand Book which contains the rules and procedure that have to be followed in importing raw materials. Rule 97 prescribes the procedure for allotment of imported materials to actual users by the canalising agency. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 97 provides that the actual users must approach the canalising asencv concerned for allotment and they have to conform to procedures if any prescribed by such agency.
11. From these provisions we have to gather the relationship of the 2nd Respondent company with the Central Government and the functions which they have to carry out in accordance with the policy statement. It will be seen that thp State Trading Corporation Ltd. controls the 2nd Respondent and the former is controlled by the Central Government. Under the Import and Export Control Act and Import Control Order the Government have undertaken to discharge certain duties in the matter of import of cashewnuts and its distribution on withdrawing the Open General Licensing System of import of this commodity. This function which it has to statutorily perform is delegated to the and Respondent as per the order referred to above and also the policy statement mentioned above. So, the 2nd Respondent is in effect discharging or carrying out a governmental function in the matter of import and export of raw cashew-nuts, or in other words, it can rightly be called an agency of the Government. What the Government has to do is done by it through the agency of the 2nd Respondent. So that, in the discharge of this duty of allotment of imported raw cashew-nuts Respondents 1 and 2 have to conform to the Import and Export Control Act, Import Control Order and the Policy Statement. That being so, if there is a violation of the provisions in the discharge of this duty either by the 1st Respondent or its agent the 2nd Respondent, the aft-grieved Person can approach this Court under Article 226 and seek for appropriate directions or orders.
12. The contention that the 2nd Respondent is a company registered under the Companies Act and therefore is not a public authority amenable to the writ jurisdiction is unsustainable in the light of what has been stated above regarding the relationship of the company with the 1st Respondent and the duties which the 1st Respondent has to carry out under the statutory provisions. Though the Cashew Corporation of India Ltd. or for that matter the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. is a private limited company it does not in any wav affect this question. The administration of the affairs of the Corporation is a concern of the Government of India. The legal and beneficial ownership of the Corporation vests in the Government of India. The character of such companies is described by Martin Wolff (Private International Law, (1945) at page 56) as follows:
"It occurs frequently that a State creates e. g.. for a commercial purpose, a separate legal entity, in law distinct from the State but in fact, if the veil of personality is pierced, identical with it, Examples are ............notably many companies under State control the State possessing all or practically all the shares in that company (See Quotation in AIR 1963 SC 1811 at p. 1835).
This Corporation is performing in the matter of import and allotment a Governmental function under the statute and therefore it is nothing else than an agent of the Govt. Justice Shah in his separate judgment in State Trading Corporation of India v. Commercial Tax Officer (AIR 1963 SC 1811 at p. 1849) at paragraph 115 has thus said:--
"Where, however, the Corporation is performing in substance governmental, and not commercial functions, an inference that it is an agent of the Government may readily be made."
13. In the light of what I have said above it is not necessary to go into the question of the applicability of the doctrine of lifting the veil of incorporation to this case. Gajendragadkar, C. J. has in the decision reported in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar (AIR 1965 SC 40) noticed that in course of time the doctrine that the corporation or the company was a legal or a separate entity of its own may be subjected to certain exceptions as a result of the impact of complexity of economic factors and to meet the requirements of different economic problems. The Government cannot set up a separate legal entity, delegate governmental functions to it and then through that separate entity try to escape out of the obligations imposed on it by the statute. The creation of a separate entity may facilitate the carrying out of many of the present day functions of the Government. But one cannot forget that when the rights of individuals are in any way affected or otherwise interfered with in this process the true nature and the character of the function carried out by the legal entity will come UP for scrutiny and if what has been done is really a violation of the statutory obligations, that violation cannot be looked at differently as an action of a non-governmental authority and taken out of judicial review. The question involved in this case is one such governmental action carried out by the Govt. through the 2nd Respondent and a writ will lie under Article 226 of the Constitution. The wording of that Article itself supports my conclusion.
14. The main contention urged on behalf of the petitioners is that the Policy adopted in the allotment of imported raw cashewnuts is highly arbitrary and against the provisions of the Import Control Order and the statement of policy laid down in the Import Control Policy. The Import Control Order. Clause 6 provides for refusal of the issue of a licence to a person to import raw materials if the State decides to canalise the import and distribution of such imported raw material through a specialised agency. On import the imported item has to be distributed to the actual users following certain definite non-discriminatory principles. An actual user may be denied allotment only if he comes under Clause 8 of the Order. The Import Policy Statement provides that the imported cashewnuts will be released to actual users by the canalising agency. It does not allow a picking and choosing of the actual users for distribution. There may be existing actual users or there may be persons who may bona fide reauire the imported raw material for actual use. In releasing the imported item the claims of all these actual users will have to be looked into and their demands reasonably or proportionately satisfied with the available stock of the imported item. A self-imposed restriction by which the distributing agency refuses to consider the claims of bona fide actual users will really be an illegal exercise of the discretion. The factories now owned by the petitioners were existing factories on 1-9-1970. The fact that before 1st September, 1970 these petitioners were not depending on imported nuts will not in any wav make them non-actual users of raw cashewnuts. The rule that imported cashewnuts will be distributed only to those who were importing raw cashewnuts for two years immediately before 1st September, 1970 will be indirectly creating a monopoly in some persons which the Import Trade Policy Statement does not contemplate and statute and orders relevant to this do not envisage. This self-imposed rule is really arbitrary and is not warranted by the Import Control Order or the Policy Statement laid down by the Government in the matter of import of raw cashewnuts. Therefore. Respondents 1 and 2 were not justified in restricting the allotment of imported raw cashewnuts to only those persons who were importing raw cashewnuts for two years immediately preceding 1st September, 1970.
15. This decision to allot imported raw cashewnuts to only those who were importing them before 1st September, 1970 has another adverse effect on those who do not come under that category. The cashew industry depends largely on imported raw nuts. The above set of persons who are eligible for this allotment are required to procure certain quantity of indigenous raw cashewnuts, process and export them and such quantity must be more or less equal to 20 per cent of the allotted imported nuts. This means these allottees are getting a monopoly in the matter of allotment of imported nuts and they are required to compete with other processins units depending onlv on indigenous raw cashewnuts. With the resources in their hands the allottees may very well manage to procure indigenous raw nuts at the risk of the other processing units depending solelv on them. That means the other processing units are denied imported raw cashewnuts and at the same time they are asked to face a keen competition in the purchase of indigenous raw nuts. That means they are faced with a very severe strain to carry on the cashew business by the Policy of allotment adopted by Respondents 1 and 2. Very soon this industry will become the monopoly of the existing allottees. This will be the result of the arbitrary fixation of a rule that imported raw nuts will be allotted only to those who were importing them for two years immediately preceding 1st September, 1970.
16. That Respondents 1 and 2 themselves are not following the rule is clear from what has been done by them after 1st Sept., 1970, Kerala Government have set up a Corporation called the 'Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd.' and this company has taken over some of the factories previously owned or managed by private individuals. Many factories were closed down on account of the vicissitudes in the trade and labour situation after 1964 and 1965. This company owned by the Kerala Government requires imported raw cashewnut for processing in the factories managed by it. This company came into being onlv after 1970 and if the self-imposed rule laid down by the 2nd Respondent is followed the company is not entitled to allotment of raw cashewnuts. But it is conceded that this company has been allotted imported raw cashewnuts. Whatever may be the reasons which they have put forward in the counter-affidavit to justify this allotment, it is not consistent with their stand that those who were not depending on imported raw cashewnuts before 1st September, 1970 are not eligible for allotment of imported cashewnuts. This action of the 2nd Respondent is ureed by the petitioners to show that this self-imposed rule is really arbitrary and never intended to be followed uniformly to all those who applied for allotment of imported cashewnuts. There is much force in this contention. Again, the 2nd Respondent has admitted in the counter-affidavit and the petitioners rely on them, that they have begun to make use of some quantity of imported raw cashewnuts for processing in units hired by them or employed by them. As Per the order appointing them as the canalising agency they are to import and distribute. They cannot make use of this facility to make use of these imported cashewnuts for their own use. If they are deemed to be actual users they can also be only reckoned as actual users after 1st September. 1970. So that, in their own case the self-imposed rule is not followed. This is an additional circumstance to show that the rule is arbitrary and is not being followed whenever the 2nd Respondent chooses to think otherwise. In such circumstances, the complaint of the petitioners that this arbitrary rule denying them any allotment of imported raw cashewnuts amounts to a denial of eauality or equal protection by the State and also amounts to an abuse of the exercise of the statutory function imposed on tile 1st Respondent under the Import and Export Control Act and Import Control Order, 1955, is correct.
16. In the result. I allow these original petitions to the extent stated below.
(a) In O. P. No. 3455 of 1972 the orders refusing allotment evidenced by Exts. P1, P6 and P8 are set aside.
(b) In O. P. No. 3457 of 1972 the orders refusing allotment evidenced by Exts. P3. P4, P8 and P9 are set aside.
(c) Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider afresh the request made by the petitioners for allotment of imported raw cashewnuts without insisting on their showing import performance before 1-9-1970 and make allotments of imported raw cashewnuts to them subiect to and in accordance with the current policy statement (Red Book) of the Government of India and in the light of the observations made above.
(d) There will be no order as to costs.