Granites Vs. Union of India &
Ors  Insc 351 (3 April 2007)
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA
I.A. Nos. 1 & 2 in T.C.(C) No. 165/2006 with I.A.Nos.2,4,5,6,7, & 10
in TP(C) No.579 of 2006 T.P.(C) No.1067 of 2006 I.A.No.1 & 2 in T.C.(C) No.168
of 2006 SLP (C) No.13670 of 2006 SLP (C) No.13671 of 2006 C.A. No. of 2007
arising out of S.L.P) (CC NO.9879 of 2006) C.A. No. of 2007 arising out of
S.L.P) (CC No.9880 of 20006) C.A. No. of 2007 arising out of S.L.P) (CC NO.9881
of 2006) T.C. (C) No.166 of 2006 W.P.(C) No.600 of 2006 T.C.(C) NO.167 of 2006
T.C.(C) 1 of 2007 W.P.(C) No.22 of 2007 SLP (C) No.5376 of 2007 KAPADIA, J.
In this batch of matters, the central question which we are called upon to
decide is regarding the validity of Policy Circular dated 30.8.05 and
Notification No.24 dated 31.8.05 which has the effect of amending para 6.8(a)
and para 6.8(h) of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009.
This judgment is confined to Domestic Tariff Area sales (DTA sales) by 100%
Export Oriented Unit (EOU).
Leave granted in special leave petitions filed by Union of India against
The basic issue which we need to decide in this batch of cases is: whether
DTA sales by 100% EOUs form an integral part of EOU Scheme? For the sake of
convenience we reproduce hereinbelow the facts as reproduced in the case of Union
of India & others v. M/s. Abhishek Exports [Civil Appeal Noof 2007 arising
out of S.L.P. (C) No(CC9879 of 2006)].
The concept of EOU was introduced in 1980 in the EXIM Policy. The EOU Scheme
was framed in order to boost the Indian exports. Under the said Scheme, EOU
could be located at any place. In 1992, statutory recognition was given to EXIM
Policy vide Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act,
1992. In 1991, EOU was permitted to sell rejects upto 5% and goods in the DTA
after obtaining permission from the Export Commissioner. In 1997, under EXIM
Policy 1997-2002, EOU was permitted to sell rejects as well as goods upto 50%
of the FOB Value of exports subject to payment of duty and fulfillment of
minimum Net Foreign Exchange Earnings (NFE). Over and above this limit, EOU
could sell finished products which were freely importable against payment of
On 24.3.2000 M/s. Abhishek Exports was granted the Letter of Permission
(LOP) by the Development Commissioner, NOIDA, to manufacture and export marble
tiles and finished marble blocks. In the LOP it was stipulated that M/s.
Abhishek Exports had to maintain NFE percentage and they were required to
achieve minimum Export Obligations. In the said LOP it was further stipulated
that M/s. Abhishek Exports cold make domestic sales as per the provisions of
EXIM Policy 1997-2002.
M/s. Abhishek Exports started exporting finished marble made out of rough
imported marble and rough indigenous marble. The rough marble so imported was
duty-free. Under the LOP, M/s. Abhishek Exports had the right to make sales in
DTA, subject to payment of concessional and full duty as the case may be.
On 1.4.04 FTP 2004-2009 came into force. We quote herein below paras 6.1,
6.5, 6.8(a), 6.8(b), 6.8(d), 6.8(e), 6.8(g) and 6.8(h) of the FTP 2004-2009
which read as under:
"CHAPTER- 6 EXPORT ORIENTED UNITS (EOUs), ELECTRONICS HARDWARE
TECHNOLOGY PARKS (EHTPs), SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARKS (STPs) AND BIO-TECHNOLOGY
PARKS (BTPs) Eligibility 6.1 Units undertaking to export their entire
production of goods and services (except permissible sales in the DTA), may be
set up under the Export Oriented Unit (EOU) Scheme, Electronic Hardware
Technology Park (EHTP) Scheme, Software Technology Park (STP) Scheme or
Bio-Technology Park (BTP) scheme for manufacture of goods, including repair,
re-making, reconditioning, re-engineering, and rendering of services. Trading
units, however, are not covered under these schemes.
Net Foreign Exchange Earnings (NFE) 6.5 EOU/EHTP/STP/BTP unit shall be a
positive net foreign exchange earner.
Net Foreign Exchange Earnings (NFE) shall be calculated cumulatively in
blocks of five years, starting from the commencement of production.
DTA Sale of Finished Products/ Rejects Waste/ Scrap/ Remnants and
By-products 6.8 The entire production of EOU/EHTP/STP/BTP units shall be
exported subject to the following:
(a) Units, other than gems and jewellery units, may sell goods upto 50% of
FOB value of exports subject to fulfillment of positive NFE on payment of
concessional duties . Within the entitlement of DTA sale, the unit may sell in
DTA its products similar to the goods which are exported or expected to be exported
from the units. No DTA sale at concessional duty shall be permissible in
respect of motor cars, alcoholic liquors, books and tea (except instant tea) or
by a packaging/ labeling /segregation/ refrigeration unit/
compacting/micronisation/pulverization/granulation /conversion of mono-hydrate
form of chemical to anhydrous form or vice- versa and such other items as may
be notified from time to time.
Sales made to a unit in SEZ shall also be taken into account for the purpose
of arriving at FOB value of export by EOU provided payment for such sales are
made from EEFC Account.
Sale to DTA would also be subject to mandatory requirement of registration
of pharmaceutical products (including bulk drugs).
(b) For services, including software units, sale in the DTA in any mode,
including on line data communication shall also be permissible up to 50% of FOB
value of exports and /or 50% of foreign exchange earned, where payment of such
services is received in foreign exchange.
(d) Unless specifically prohibited in the LOP, rejects may be sold in the
Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) on payment of duties as applicable to sale under
paragraph 6.8(a) on prior intimation to the Customs authorities. Such sales
shall be counted against DTA sale entitlement. Sale of rejects upto 5% of FOB
value of exports shall not be subject to achievement of NFE.
(e) Scrap/ waste/ remnants arising out of production process or in
connection therewith may be sold in the DTA as per the Standard Input-Output
norms notified under the Duty Exemption Scheme on payment of concessional
duties as applicable within the overall ceiling of 50% of FOB value of exports.
Such sales shall not, however, be subject to achievement of positive NFE. In
respect of items not covered by the norms, the Development Commissioner may fix
ad-hoc norms on the basis of data for a period of six months and within this
period, he shall get the norms fixed by the BOA. Sale of waste/scrap/remnants
by units not entitled to DTA sale or sales beyond the DTA sale entitlement,
shall be on payment of full duties. The scrap/waste/remnants may also be
(g) By-products included in the LOP may also be sold in the DTA subject to
achievement of positive NFE on payment of applicable duties within the overall
entitlement of paragraph 6.8(a). Sale of by-products by units not entitled to
DTA sales or beyond the entitlements of paragraph 6.8 (a) shall also be
permissible on payment of full duties.
(h) EOU/ EHTP/ STP/BTP units may sell finished products, which are freely
importable under the Policy in the DTA under intimation to the Development
Commissioner against payment of full duties provided they have achieved the
To sum up, para 6.8(a) of the FTP provided that goods, upto 50% of FOB Value
of exports, could be sold on payment of concessional rate of duty in the DTA
subject to fulfillment of positive NFE. The ceiling, therefore, included sale
of rejects under para 6.8(d) as well as sale of waste under para 6.8(e) and
by-products under para 6.8(g). Under para 6.8(h), sale of finished products
could be made in DTA against payment of full duty, provided the said good was
freely importable under the Policy. Further, under para 6.8(h) sale of
by-products and sale of waste beyond the entitlement of para 6.8 was
permissible on payment of full duty. The above quoted paragraphs are relevant
extracts of FTP 2004-2009 in respect of EOU.
On 16.12.04, the Development Commissioner, NOIDA, approved the Renewal
Application made by M/s. Abhishek Exports for next five year that is from 2005-2006
to 2009- 2010, under LOP dated 24.3.2000.
The approval dated 16.12.04 stipulated that M/s.
Abhishek Exports should have NFE of Rs.9.90 crores in the next five years.
Under the LOP, the exporter was required to maintain positive NFE.
On 31.8.05 the impugned Notification was issued amending para 6.8(a) and
para 6.8(h) of FTP 2004-2009. By the impugned Notification the EOUs were
prevented from making DTA sales of the finished marble from imported rough
marble, with immediate effect. It is this Notification which is the
subject-matter of challenge.
According to M/s. Abhishek Exports, an investment of Rs.300 lakhs had been
made; that, it had taken a loan from State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur to the
tune of Rs.2.30 lakhs on the basis of the Policy of Government of India and
that by making the above investments it had changed its position substantially.
According to M/s. Abhishek Exports, on account of the impugned Notification,
the quantity of marble sold by it in the DTA stood reduced. According to M/s.
Abhishek Exports such an amendment to the FTP 2004-2009 by the impugned
Notification was devoid of any element of public interest. According to M/s.
Abhishek Exports, the impugned Notification was against the basic feature of
the EOU Scheme.
The Notification was challenged before the Rajasthan High Court. Vide Order
dated 29.09.06 the writ petition filed by M/s. Abhishek Exports in the
Rajasthan High Court stands transferred to this Court vide Transfer Case (C)
No.165 of 2006.
According to M/s. Abhishek Exports, by the impugned Circular dated 30.8.2005
the quantity which could be imported by Special Import License Units (SIL
Units) was arbitrarily increased from 80,000 MT to 1.30 Lakh MT. The Circular
dated 30.8.05 has been challenged on the ground that it discriminates
unreasonably between 100% EOUs and SIL Units; that, the impugned Circular gives
benefit to selected importers; that, the effect of the impugned Circular was to
increase the availability of imported rough marble blocks for use in the domestic
market and that for no reason the right to import has been unreasonably limited
only to SIL Units by the impugned Notification dated 31.8.05. According to M/s.
Abhishek Exports, by reason of the impugned Circular/Notification the
quantity of marble sold by the EOUs in the domestic area has been reduced and
the quantity of marble sold by SIL Units from the same imported rough marble
stood significantly increased which has resulted in the loss to the EOUs.
According to M/s. Abhishek Exports, the impugned Circular/Notification was
against public interest since the SIL Units had no Export Obligations, they
were not Foreign Exchange Earners; they were required to pay lesser rate of
duty and consequently according to M/s. Abhishek Exports the impugned Circular/Notification
was not in public interest. Further, according to M/s. Abhishek Exports, DTA
sales constituted essential feature of the EOU Scheme since vide para 6.1, 100%
EOUs undertook to export their entire production of goods, except permissible
sale in the DTA, under the EOU Scheme and, therefore, the DTA sales constituted
an integral part of EOU Scheme. It was submitted that the DTA sales were
permitted only if the EOU fulfilled its Export Obligations and achieved
positive NFE and, therefore, the intention was to grant benefit to the EOU on
achieving positive NFE and it had no co-relation with the imported raw material
out of which the exports are made. According to M/s.
Abhishek Exports, in the absence of DTA sales, an EOU would be compelled to
sell its entire production in the export market.
According to M/s. Abhishek Exports, on account of total restriction on DTA
sales their inventory of marble tiles is likely to get accumulated in the
factory blocking the working capital and funds, which otherwise would have been
disposed of in the local market. According to M/s. Abhishek Exports, the
unamended Policy had provided an insulation/hedge against the fall in the
export business in the international market.
According to M/s. Abhishek Exports, an EOU could sell the marble tiles in
the domestic market in the slump season so that production and business
activity of an EOU was not adversely affected. According to M/s. Abhishek
Exports on account of impugned Circular/Notification an idle capacity during
the slump season would accrue. Further, under the unamended Policy, in case of
loss, an EOU could make good the loss by DTA sales and, therefore, such sales
constituted an essential feature of the EOU Scheme. According to M/s.
Abhishek Exports, DTA sales were essential to run the plant at maximum
capacity, to minimize the cost of production in the competitive export market,
to deal with export surplus and to provide for disposal of export products on
cancellation of export orders. According to M/s. Abhishek Exports, the impugned
Circular/Notification has been published with the view to protect the SIL Units
at the cost of 100% EOUs.
According to M/s. Abhishek Exports, the impugned amendments would disrupt
the business of EOUs and it would flood the domestic market with 1.30 lakhs MT
of finished marble product made from imported rough marble which would not
serve the public interest. According to M/s.
Abhishek Exports, the impugned Circular/Notification has been issued to
protect the marble industry of Gujarat which is the primary beneficiary of the
SIL based import policy of marble. M/s. Abhishek Exports further submitted that
Article 14 of the Constitution of India is violated in the present case since
the impugned Circular/Notification has been issued to give concession to SIL
importers at the cost of EOUs.
On 10.1.07 when the above matters came for hearing before this Court, the
following order was passed:
"Ban on DTA sales by 100% EOU under OGL licence and limiting the
issuance of licences to those applicants who have imported crude marble between
1999-2001 under SIL scheme vide impugned policy circulars Nos. 24 dated
30.8.2005, No. 34 dated 30.11.2005 and notification Nos. 23 and 24 dated
31.8.2005 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned new policy) was the subject
matter of challenge vide writ petitions filed in various High Courts.
By order dated 29.9.2006, the said writ petitions stood transferred to this
Having regard to the arguments advanced before us and in view of the fact
that the entitlement of Domestic Users for financial year 2005-06 is going to
lapse on 31.3.2007 the following interim order is passed.
DGFT would be entitled to grant licences to the applicants who are so
entitled under policy circular No. 24 dated 30.8.2005. To that extent our order
dated 29.9.2006 stands vacated.
In T.P. (C) No. 579/06 filed by the Director General of Foreign Trade it has
been inter alia stated that on account of representations received from the
traders and the material (including complaints) gathered by DGFT, the impugned
new policy came to be enacted. This was after detailed discussions with the
Trade. The broad features of the new policy and the reasons for enacting the
policy are given in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of T.P. (C) No. 579/06. However,
it appears that the requisite material was not supplied to the affected 100%
EOUs. who have complained before us that the changes have been made in FTP vide
the impugned policy without giving any opportunity to the affected Units. At
this stage we may point out that learned Solicitor General of India stated
before us that the impugned policy decision is taken on certain material
(including complaints/ representations received) which he is prepared to
disclose to the concerned EOUs. Accordingly, we direct DGFT to supply the
material in its possession to the affected EOUs., who have filed the writ
petitions, on or before 15.1.2007. The said petitioners (EOUs.) who have filed
writ petitions in the High Court shall thereafter make representations to the
DGFT within 10 days on and from the receipt of the material (including
complaints) from DGFT. Thereafter, DGFT will decide the matter in accordance
with law. We make it clear that it will be open to DGFT to equitably work out
the matter, if possible. One point, however, needs to be mentioned. It is
stated on behalf of M/s Hindustan Granites that they have accumulated wastes
which they are entitled to sell in DTA under the unamended policy. It is
contended on behalf of M/s Hindustan Granites that they have fulfilled the
benchmark of Net Foreign Exchange earnings and, therefore, they were entitled
to sell the accumulated wastes in the domestic market (DTA) under para 6.8 (h)
on payment of full duty. On this point, M/s Hindustan Granites can also make
the representation giving facts and figures regarding the quantity of waste
which has accumulated and it will be open to DGFT if possible to decide the
question regarding sale of the said waste in the DTA.
The question as to whether the impugned circulars/notifications constitutes
a change in the policy or whether it is a matter of detail within the existing
policy is the question which will be decided on the next date of hearing when
we will examine the merits of the case.
On receiving the report from DGFT, we shall hear the matter on merits on the
next occasion. In the meantime, the ban on EOU Units undertaking DTA sales
shall continue to remain in operation.
Consequently, interim order of the Rajasthan High Court dated 26.10.2005 in
DB Civil Writ Petition No. 5811/05 shall remain stayed.
Stand over to 31.1.2007."
On 7.2.07, the Director General of Foreign Trade after hearing the parties
and after considering their representations passed an order rejecting the
various representations made by M/s. Hindustan Granites Ltd., M/s. Abhishek
Exports, M/s. Pacific Industries Limited, M/s. Jain Grani Marmo Pvt. Limited,
M/s. Marble Art (all 100% EOUs). The said order is also under challenge before
The said order has re-affirmed the decision taken on 31.8.05 qua 100% EOUs
and qua SIL Units without any change. In this connection, it is submitted on
behalf of M/s.
Abhishek Exports that the Director General had erred in holding that the
EOUs were misusing the DTA facility by making finished products from indigenous
marble and exporting the said finished products rather than making finished
products from the imported marble and exporting the same. According to M/s.
Abhishek Exports, FTP 2004-2009 specifically allow EOUs to sell finished
products made from imported marble in the DTA, upto 50% of FOB value on payment
of concessional rate of duty vide para 6.8(a). That, the said Policy permitted
EOUs to sell anything above 50% of the FOB value of exports in the DTA on
payment of full duty [para 6.8(h)] subject to the EOUs maintaining a positive
According to M/s. Abhishek Exports, the above system operated for seven
years. According to M/s. Abhishek Exports, the above system is allowed in the
Hand Book of Procedure under which there was no requirement to co-relate every
import consignment with exports. According to M/s.
Abhishek Exports, for last seven years the Implementing Authority has not
objected to the manufacture of finished goods from indigenous marble and that
the said Authority has never objected to such finished goods being exported as
breach or misuse of the Policy. According to M/s. Abhishek Exports, the
Director General had erred in holding that the impugned amendment was to
protect the domestic marble industry. According to M/s. Abhishek Exports, on
account of change in Policy the EOUs which were previously buying rough marble
from the domestic market to make finished products and exporting the same would
not be now able to do so. That, under the amended Policy the EOUs are now
required to export finished products made from imported marble. According to
M/s. Abhishek Exports, on account of change in Policy qua SIL Units permitting
them imports of marble to the order of 1.30 Lakhs MT as compared 68,000 MT
would effect the domestic mining industry. According to M/s.
Abhishek Exports, the Director General had erred in holding that there was
diversion of the imported rough marble in DTA which defeated the very purpose
of putting marble as under the restricted category. In this connection, M/s.
Abhishek Exports contend that there was no diversion because DTA sales was
specifically permitted under paras 6.8(a) and 6.8(h) of FTP 2004-2009 prior to
its amendment on 31.8.05 and, therefore, there was no misuse as found by the
Director General of Foreign Trade.
We find no merit in the challenge to the impugned Circular/Notification for
the following reasons. Firstly, it is important to note that under para 6.1 of
the unamended FTP 2004-2009, 100% EOUs undertook to export their entire
production except permissible sales in DTA. Therefore, DTA sales constituted an
exception or an incidental facility. DTA sales were not an integral part of the
EOU Scheme. Under para 6.1, EOUs were allowed to be set up on the condition
that they would export their entire production. It is on this condition that
100% EOUs could avail of various benefits under Customs and Excise Act. The
said DTA sales or sales of rejects were exceptions. DTA sales were not an
integral part of the EOU Scheme in the sense that if for reasonable reasons if
these exceptions are eliminated, as in this case, the Scheme would become
unworkable. In fact, M/s. Hindustan Granites even today after the impugned
amendment works without use of domestic raw material. Hence, DTA sales is not
an integral part of the EOU Scheme. Secondly, it is important to note that 100%
EOUs have been importing rough marble blocks from which they are producing
marble tiles/slabs and what they are exporting is the said marble tiles/slabs.
However, the Director General found, in the course of last seven years, that
the entire export of marble tiles/slabs is made out of the poor quality
indigenous rough marble blocks. On the other hand, it is found that the entire
sale of marble tiles/slabs in DTA is from rich good quality imported rough
Therefore, the DTA sales by 100% EOUs are now disallowed under the impugned
Circular/Notification. Thirdly, on account of the above practice, the Director
General has found that four to five 100% EOUs have been importing rough marble
ostensibly for export but in effect after slight polishing the same are sold in
DTA. Marble is a restricted item. On account of the above practice, the
Director General has found circumvention of the Restricted Import Policy of
marble during 100% EOU Scheme (unamended). As stated above, the concept of Net
Foreign Exchange earning is very important.
On account of the price differential, under the impugned practice, there is
substitution of imported inputs by domestic inputs. The rational behind
allowing imports of rough marble blocks by 100% EOUs was that the raw material
would be used for export production and that it will not be diverted in DTA
defeating the very purpose of putting marble in the restricted category. The
object behind the EOU Scheme is consumption of imported raw material for
manufacture of finished products which are to be exported. If that facility
leads to substitution of imported inputs by domestically procured inputs then
the facility has to be discontinued. This discontinuation has been done by the
impugned Circular/Notification. Fourthly, as stated above, marble is an item
under restricted category. It is put in the restricted category since it is not
treated as only revenue-generating resource. It is put in the restricted
category because the mining industry depends on that resource. It generates
employment. Mining generates employment. Marble is an input required in the
mining industry. As a result of impugned substitution, the Indian market gets
flooded by the imported goods resulting in unemployment in the mining industry.
Fifthly, by the impugned Circular/Notification, the Government has stopped
procurement of domestic rough marble blocks for achieving NFE earnings. This is
the major object behind the impugned Circular/Notification. It is true that the
unamended Policy had no co-relation between the input imported and the finished
product exported. That was the loophole. To stop the procurement of domestic
rough marble blocks for achieving NFE, the DTA sales had to be prohibited. By
the amended Policy 100% EOUs are now required to produce marble tiles/slabs
(finished products) out of imported rough marble blocks and thereby the amended
Policy stops the procurement of domestic rough marble blocks for achieving NFE
by these 100% EOUs. Lastly, there are 20 to 25 SIL Units (found to be eligible)
vis-`-vis 4 to 5 100% EOUs and, therefore, the volume has been increased from
68,000 MT to 1,30 Lakhs MT.
Before concluding, we would like to refer to the authority cited on behalf
of 100% EOUs.
In the case of Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v.
Commercial Tax Officer and Others (2005) 1 SCC 625, the Division Bench of
this Court speaking through one of us, Pasayat, J., has held that exemption
from purchase tax on sugarcane granted in favour of sugar mills established in
public sector whose production exceeded Rs.300 lakhs was entitled to tax
benefit and that the Government was not right in withdrawing that benefit,
particularly, when the industry stood established on basis of representation
made by the Government. While explaining the doctrine of promissory estoppel it
has been observed vide paras '16' and '17' that if the State acts within the
bounds of reasonableness to be decided in an objective manner and from the
stand point of public interest then the restriction cannot be said to be
unreasonable, merely because it operates harshly. In our view, on the facts of
the present case, we are satisfied that the impugned amendment fulfills the
test of public interest and it also fulfills the test of reasonableness qua the
restrictions imposed on 100% EOUs.
Similarly, in the case of Union of India and Another v.
International Trading Co. and Another - (2003) 5 SCC 437, the Division Bench
of this Court speaking through one of us, Pasayat, J., has held that if State
acts reasonably keeping in mind national priority and good trade policies then
it cannot be said that the restrictions imposed in economic interest are
unreasonable even though they operate harshly [See: paras '22' and '23'].
In the case of Union of India & ors. V. M/s. Asian Food Industries -
(2006) 12 Scale 105, on which reliance is placed by counsel for M/s. Abhishek
Exports, the Division Bench of this Court has held that Foreign Trade Policy
under Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 along with the Hand
Book of Procedure constituted a composite Scheme. We do not dispute with this
proposition. Hand Book of Procedure merely implements the policy. It does not
prevent the Central Government from changing the policy.
Vide paras '29' and '30' of the said judgment it has been held specifically
that the Central Government can, in exercise of its powers under Section 5 of
the 1992 Act, prohibit exports. In that case, this Court was concerned with the
question of banning of exports. It is not so in this case. In the matter before
us there was an incidental. Facility given to 100% EOUs to hedge the losses
which may arise on account of changes in foreign exchange rates which facility
In our view, nothing prevents the Central Government, in public interest, to
plug the loophole by tinkering with the existing policy as is done in the
present case. Disallowing DTA sales by 100% EOUs for above reasons cannot be
compared with total ban on export of pulses which was the case in the matter of
M/s. Asian Food Industries (supra). As held hereinabove, DTA sales did not
constitute an integral part of the EOU Scheme, hence the above judgment has no
For the above reasons, we do not see any merit in the challenge to the
impugned Circular dated 30.8.05 and the Notification dated 31.8.05 by the above
Accordingly, we uphold the validity of the Circular dated 30.8.05 and the
Notification dated 31.8.05. Interlocutory Applications, civil appeals, transfer
petition and transfer cases are disposed of accordingly with no order as to
As stated above, this judgment is confined to the challenge to the impugned
Circular/Notification by 100% EOUs and has nothing to do with the challenge by
SIL Units who have instituted separate petitions which will be heard in normal