Judgement Mrs. SUJATA MANOHAR, J.:- Extrusion Processes Pvt. Ltd. filed a petition in this High Court, being Writ Petition No. 1717 of 1981 challenging the grant of an import licence to M/s. Oriental Containers Ltd. (respondent No. 3) permitting them to import plant and machinery for the production of aluminium collapsible tubes. By his judgment and order dated 10-12-1982 the learned single Judge of this Court, who heard the petition, dismissed the petition with costs. The petitioners have come in appeal from this decision. 2. The petitioners manufacture, inter alia, aluminium collapsible tubes. According to the petitioners, from the year 1963 onwards they have also been manufacturing plant and machinery for the production of aluminium collapsible tubes. Their manufacturing division is known as "Packmachines". The petitioners claim to have manufactured 9 such plants for the production of aluminium collapsible tubes. These plants, however, are being utilised by the petitioners themselves or by their allied concerns. Admittedly no such plant has been sold commercially to any outside party in India. The petitioners, however, claim to have sold and exported one such plant to an outside party in Zambia. 3. Respondent No. 3 M/s. Oriental Containers Ltd., were desirous of manufacturing aluminium collapsible tubes. They were granted a Letter of Intent dated 29-11-1980 for setting up a plant in a backward area for manufacturing aluminium collapsible tubes/rigid containers. For the purpose of manufacturing collapsible tubes respondent No. 3 wanted an import licence for importing the requisite plant and machinery. The Hand Book of Import-Export Procedures for the year 1981-82 lays down the procedure for making an application for an import licence for capital goods including plant and machinery. Under para 107 of the Hand Book of Import-Export Procedures, 1981-82, where the value of capital goods required to be imported exceeds Rs. 20 lakhs, the intending applicant has to advertise his requirements in the Indian Trade Journal or the Indian Export Service Bulletin so as to enable interested indigenous manufacturers to respond to his requirements first. In the advertisement the applicant is required to give details of specifications of the capital goods required by him, the desired period of delivery and other relevant particulars. A period of 45 days from the date of publication of the advertisement is made available to the indigenous manufacturers to make their offers to the applicant. In the advertisement the applicant is required to give details of specifications of the capital goods required by him, the desired period of delivery and other relevant particulars. A period of 45 days from the date of publication of the advertisement is made available to the indigenous manufacturers to make their offers to the applicant. The offerers are required to send their proposals directly to the applicant with a copy addressed by registered post A.D. to the Directorate General of Technical Development, Ministry of Industry, New Delhi. After a period of 45 days from the date of the advertisement, the intending importer may apply to the licensing authority for a licence to import the Capital Goods in question. In the application for import the applicant is required to state the serial number and the date of publication of the advertisement, offers received and their individual appreciation by the applicant. The applicant is also required to state clearly the reasons for rejection of the offers received. This procedure has been provided in order to ascertain whether the capital goods which are to be imported are manufactured indigenously or not; this being a relevant factor, under the import policy for the relevant period to be borne in mind in granting or refusing an import licence to the applicant. 4. In compliance with this procedure which was prescribed, respondent No. 3 issued an advertisement dated 21-1-1981 in the Indian Trade Journal advertising that they were interested in importing plant and machinery for the manufacture of aluminium collapsible tubes. Respondent 3 set out in the advertisement specifications of plant and machinery required by them. These included (1) Annealing Oven, (2) Internal Lacquering Machine, (3) Decorating Plant consisting of (a) Base Coating Machine and Combined Drying Oven and (b) Four-Colour Offset Printing Machine, (4) Capping Machine and (5) Automatic Tube Latexing Machine. Respondent No. 3 did not include in this advertisement Impact Extrusion Press and Automatic Trimming Machine, although these two machines are important parts of the plant for the manufacture of aluminium collapsible tubes. This was done because at the relevant time, that is to say, prior to April 1981 both these machines could be imported under an Open General Licence and it was not necessary to comply with the above procedure for the purpose of importing these two machines. This was done because at the relevant time, that is to say, prior to April 1981 both these machines could be imported under an Open General Licence and it was not necessary to comply with the above procedure for the purpose of importing these two machines. Under the Import Policy, however, which was announced as from April 1981 by the Government of India, these two machines, namely Impact Extrusion Press and Automatic Trimming. Rolling, Beading, Knurling Machine (hereinafter referred to as the Automatic Trimming Machine) were removed from the list of items which could be imported under an Open General Licence. The Import Policy for 1981-82 contained a general statement to the effect that care had been taken to see that indigenous manufacturers received due protection for their development. In view of this alteration made in the Import Policy for the year 1981-82, respondent No. 3 made an additional application on 28-4-1981 for an import licence for an Impact Extrusion Press and an Automatic Trimming Machine. These two machines were valued at Rs. 15,041.74. Since the value of these two machines was less than Rs. 20 lakhs, no fresh advertisement in respect of these two machines was given by respondent No. 3. 5. In response to the advertisement, which had been issued by respondent No. 3 on 21-1-1981, the petitioners made an offer dated 24-2-1981 to the respondent No. 3 for supplying the complete plant including the items of machinery specified by respondent No. 3 in the advertisement. Respondent No. 3 had, however, submitted in the meanwhile an application on or about 23-2-1981 to the concerned Ministry for an import licence in respect of these machines although the period of 45 days prescribed in the Hand Book of Import-Export Procedure had not expired from the date of advertisement. On receipt, however, of an offer from the petitioners, respondent No. 3 addressed a letter dated 25-3-1981 to the petitioners asking for the names and addresses of the parties to whom the petitioners had supplied the entire plant, and the capacities of such plants supplied. The respondent No. 3 also informed the petitioners that they would like to visit these plants. Thereafter correspondence was exchanged between the petitioners and respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 also informed the petitioners that they would like to visit these plants. Thereafter correspondence was exchanged between the petitioners and respondent No. 3. It is not necessary to go into the details of this correspondence except to note that in the correspondence while the petitioners expressed their eagerness to discuss the proposal with respondent No. 3, they did not supply the names of any third party to whom they had sold their plant in India. In fact, it is an admitted position that the petitioners have not supplied such a plant to an outsider in India. It is also necessary to note that although the petitioners had offered to supply the entire plant including internal lacquering machine and automatic tube latexing machine in their offer of 23-2-1981, the petitioners themselves placed an order in April 1981 for the import of these two machines. It is the case of the petitioners that these two machines were imported by them merely as prototypes, and that, by studying these machines, they wanted to manufacture similar machines in their factory. 6. On 22-4-1981 respondent No. 3 addressed a letter to the Secretary for Industrial Approvals, Ministry of Industry, New Delhi in connection with their pending application for the import of capital goods for the manufacture of aluminium collapsible tubes. They mentioned that their application for an import licence had not been processed earlier since they had not then complied with the advertisement procedure and waited for 45 days for the receipt of offers from local manufacturers. In this letter they pointed out that they had now complied with the advertisement procedure and that they had received two offers from indigenous sources in response to the advertisement issued by them. They enclosed these two offers, one of which was from Metal Box India Ltd. and the other one was from the petitioners. In their comments on these offers, respondent No. 3 mentioned that Metal Box India Ltd. had not quoted for an internal lacquering machine and a tube Latexing machine. The petitioners, however, had made an offer for the entire plant. Respondent No. 3 pointed out that the petitioners were themselves engaged in the business of manufacturing aluminium collapsible tubes; that they were not basically manufacturers of machines for making these tubes. Respondent No. 3 also stated that the petitioners had no experience and expertise in manufacturing these machines. The petitioners, however, had made an offer for the entire plant. Respondent No. 3 pointed out that the petitioners were themselves engaged in the business of manufacturing aluminium collapsible tubes; that they were not basically manufacturers of machines for making these tubes. Respondent No. 3 also stated that the petitioners had no experience and expertise in manufacturing these machines. They also pointed out that they had asked the petitioners to arrange a visit to a plant successfully commissioned by them, but this was not done since the petitioners had not supplied such a plant to anybody in India. Respondent No. 3 stated that it was not possible to comment on the quality of the plant manufactured by the petitioners since they were not shown any such plant. Respondent No. 3 also said that they were going into a new business in a backward area; their business involved huge capital investment, and they did not wish to take any risk. They also said that the risk in purchasing the plant from the petitioners was high because the petitioners would also be their direct rivals in trade, inasmuch as, the main business of the petitioners was manufacturing and selling aluminium collapsible tubes. In this connection they also expressed their doubts about after-sale services and said that they would not like to depend on their trade rivals for after-sale services. 7. In the meanwhile the petitioners addressed a letter dated 28-8-1981 to the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports pointing out that they were in a position to supply the machinery required by respondent No. 3, but they had learnt that respondent No. 3 were being granted a clearance for the import of this machinery. The petitioners said that they apprehended that respondent No. 3 might have made misrepresentations about them and therefore they set out in the letter their "full case" for the consideration of the Government. Similar representations were thereafter made by the petitioners to the Hon'ble Minister for Industry, Government of India, New Delhi and also to the Hon'ble Deputy Minister for Industry, Government of India, New Delhi in Sept., 1981. 8. The application of respondent No. 3 for an import licence was processed by the Directorate General of Technical Development attached to the Ministry of Industry some time in August, 1981 or a little prior thereto. 8. The application of respondent No. 3 for an import licence was processed by the Directorate General of Technical Development attached to the Ministry of Industry some time in August, 1981 or a little prior thereto. The Directorate did not clear the import of an Impact Extrusion Press and advised respondent No. 3 to approach M/s. Guest Keen Williams Ltd. for that item. M/s. Guest Keen Williams Ltd., however, expressed their inability to supply this item. Thereafter sometime on 3rd August, 1981 the Directorate General of Technical Development gave their approval to the application of the respondent No. 3 for an import licence. Out of 10 items for which an import licence had been asked for by the respondent No. 3, the Directorate General of Technical Development cleared 8 items. Thereafter the Capital Goods Committee in the Ministry of Industrial Development Secretariat for Industrial Approvals, considered the application of respondent No. 3 at its meeting held on 10th Sept., 1981 and it also approved the granting of an import licence to the respondent No. 3 as recommended by the Directorate General of Technical Development. The proposal thus recommended by these two bodies was for the grant of an import licence for the import of capital goods valued at DM. 1,129,160. 9. In the meanwhile, in view of the representations addressed by the petitioners to the Minister for Industry, Deputy Minister for Industry and to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, the petitioners received a letter dated 22-9-1981 from P.K. Sunkaria, Development Officer in the Directorate General of Technical Development, stating that in connection with the petitioners' representation he would visit the factory of the petitioners on 29/30th Sept., 1981. Accordingly P.K. Sunkaria inspected the factory of the petitioners on 29/30th Sept., 1981 in order to ascertain the facilities available at this factory and the capacity of the petitioners to manufacturing the plant in question as claimed by them. The petitioners thereafter supplied certain information and particulars required by P.K. Sunkaria. Respondent No. 3, on coming to know of the efforts made by the petitioners, also addressed a letter on 9th Oct., 1981 to the Minister of Industry putting forward their case for the grant of an import licence and setting out why, according to them, the petitioners were not a suitable party from whom the plant could be purchased. Respondent No. 3, on coming to know of the efforts made by the petitioners, also addressed a letter on 9th Oct., 1981 to the Minister of Industry putting forward their case for the grant of an import licence and setting out why, according to them, the petitioners were not a suitable party from whom the plant could be purchased. Before any final decision was taken by the Ministry, however, the petitioners filed the present petition on 1-12-1981. Thereafter respondent No. 3 received a letter dated 11-12-1981 from the Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Development, Government of India, New Delhi in respect of their two applications for an import licence, granting approval of the Government to the import of capital goods valued at DM 1,269,160. Thereafter an import licence dated 29-5-1981 was issued to the respondent No. 3 bearing No. P/CG/2085013. The petition was thereafter amended to challenge the letter of 11-12-1981 (1982 ?) and the import licence dated 29-5-1981. The grant of this licence is the bone of contention in the present proceedings. The petition was dismissed by the learned trial Judge. The petitioners have thereupon filed the present appeal. 10. At the stage of the appeal the respondents 1 and 2 namely, the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and the Union of India disclosed for the first time an extract from the minutes of the 17th meeting of the Capital Goods Committee held on 10th Sept., 1981and a copy of a letter dated 7th Nov., 1981 from A.K. Banerjee, Assistant Economic Adviser, Ministry of Industrial Development, Secretariat for Industrial Approvals. These documents throw some light on the proceedings before the Directorate General of Technical Development and the Capital Goods Committee. They have been taken on record in appeal. 11. Can the action of the Government in granting an import licence to respondent No.3 be considered as contrary to the principles of natural justice? In the first place, the grant of an import licence is a purely administrative action. Undoubtedly even a purely administrative action cannot be wholly arbitrary. Principles of natural justice, which are flexible enough to be moulded to suit the requirements of a given situation, will apply to such an administrative action in a suitably modified or attenuated form. Questions relating to a refusal to grant such a licence have come up before the Courts in a number of cases. Principles of natural justice, which are flexible enough to be moulded to suit the requirements of a given situation, will apply to such an administrative action in a suitably modified or attenuated form. Questions relating to a refusal to grant such a licence have come up before the Courts in a number of cases. Megarry V.C. in the case of Mclnees v. Ouslow Fane reported in (1978) 3 All ER 211, has classified these licence cases into three types in the following words. "First, there are what may be called the forfeiture cases. In these, there is a decision which takes away some existing right or position, as where a member of an organisation is expelled or a licence is revoked. Second, at the other extreme there are what may be called the application cases. These are cases where the decision merely refuses to grant the applicant the right or position that he seeks, such as membership of the organisation, or a licence to do certain acts. Third, there is an intermediate category, which may be called the expectation cases, which differ from the application cases only in that the applicant has some legitimate expectation from what has already happened that his application will be granted. This head includes cases where an existing licence-holder applies for a renewal of his licence, or a person already elected or appointed to some position seeks confirmation from some confirming authority. There is a substantial distinction between the forfeiture cases and the application cases. In the former, since there is a threat to take away some right or interest, the right to an unbiased tribunal, the right to notice of the charges and the right to be heard in answer to the charges would be apt. In the application cases, on the other hand, nothing is being taken away and there would be no question of any charges and so there would be ordinarily no requirement of an opportunity of being heard in answer to the charges. Instead, there is the far wider and less defined question of the general suitability of the applicant for a licence, or membership. Instead, there is the far wider and less defined question of the general suitability of the applicant for a licence, or membership. In application cases, therefore, an applicant can insist only on a fair application of the pronounced policy relating to the grant of such licence to his case and a fair appreciation of all the facts which are present before the licensing authority." Cases relating to renewal of licences or "expectation cases" fall between the other two categories and the manner in which principles of natural justice are to be applied to such cases will depend upon the circumstances relating to such cases, the procedure prescribed and other relevant material pertaining to such cases. 12. The present case is clearly a case of an application for a licence. Mr. Andhyarujina, learned Counsel for the petitioners fairly stated before us that the petitioners were not pressing for a right to be heard by respondents Nos.1 and 2 nor were they insisting on a reasoned order. He submitted, and, in our view rightly, that the petitioners were entitled to insist on a fair course of conduct on the part of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and a fair consideration by them of the material relevant to the case in view of the proclaimed import policy while deciding to grant or not to grant an import licence in favour of respondent No.3. 13. It is the contention of the petitioners that this duty to act fairly implies in the present case a duty to give an opportunity to the petitioners to state their case and a duty to give to the petitioners an opportunity to deal with the allegations made against them. We have to examine whether any such duty as claimed by the petitioners is imposed upon respondents Nos.1 and 2 in granting an import licence to respondent No.3. It is important to bear in mind that a person who applies for an import licence has naturally a direct interest in the outcome of his application. Nevertheless he does not have any vested right to obtain a licence in terms of the Import Policy. He cannot, therefore, insist on a legal right to an import licence being granted to him. Nor can he insist on a hearing being given to him or on a reasoned order which he can subsequently challenge. Nevertheless he does not have any vested right to obtain a licence in terms of the Import Policy. He cannot, therefore, insist on a legal right to an import licence being granted to him. Nor can he insist on a hearing being given to him or on a reasoned order which he can subsequently challenge. The Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports reported in AIR 1974 SC 1539 has held that Import Control Policy statement as distinguished from an Import or Export Control Order is not a statutory document and no person can merely on the basis of such a Statement, claim a right to the grant of an import licence, enforceable at law. There are similar observations made by the Supreme Court in the earlier case of Deputy Assistant Iron and Steel Controller v. L. Manickchand reported in AIR 1972 SC 935 . 14. The decision to grant or refuse a licence has to be based on a broad consideration of the policy laid down, and the general suitability and needs of the person applying for a licence. A fair consideration must be given by the authority to the relevant data before it. But ordinarily, it is not necessary to give the applicant a hearing, much less is it necessary to give a reasoned order granting or refusing a licence. Such an insistence would make the procedure for issuing licenses even more cumbersome than it is and can easily make the task of issuing licences impractical. If, therefore, the person who applies for an import licence, has no right to be heard and has no right to be informed about the material adverse to him before an order is passed refusing an import licence to him, a third party, such as the petitioner, who has no direct stake in the grant or refusal of an import licence, cannot have such a right. To grant such a right would make the work of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 of granting or refusing an import licence extremely cumbersome, time consuming and elaborately formal, and may defeat the very purpose of the policy which respondents Nos. 1 and 2 seek to implement. To grant such a right would make the work of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 of granting or refusing an import licence extremely cumbersome, time consuming and elaborately formal, and may defeat the very purpose of the policy which respondents Nos. 1 and 2 seek to implement. For example, if the petitioners are entitled to be supplied with material adverse to them and are entitled to make representations or comments on such material, then, in fairness, these comments will have to be conveyed to the respondent No. 3 who, in turn, would be entitled to comment on the comments. Ultimately it may even involve giving everybody a notice and a hearing. In the present case, it is only the petitioner who has responded to the advertisement (apart from M/s. Metal Box Containers Ltd.). In a given case there may be a large number of parties who respond to the advertisement. All these parties will, then have to be given an opportunity to make comments and/or a hearing. If there are any disputed questions of fact, a party may even insist on leading evidence; and after such an elaborate hearing, it is but fair that parties should expect a reasoned order from respondents. Nos. 1 and 2. If such an elaborate procedure is required to be followed every time an import licence is to be granted, the work of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 will become impossible. Such a procedure is not contemplated white granting an import licence in our view, a duty to act fairly, which is imposed on respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in granting such licences, does not require such an elaborate procedure to be followed. 15. In their policy statement for the relevant period, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have made it clear that while granting an import licence they would bear in mind local availability of the material for the import of which a licence is applied for. In order to fairly implement this policy, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have devised a procedure for ascertaining local availability of such items, which procedure is set out in the Hand Book. The procedure requires the applicant to issue an advertisement for the goods that he wants to import, and wait for 45 days to enable the local suppliers to respond to the advertisement. 1 and 2 have devised a procedure for ascertaining local availability of such items, which procedure is set out in the Hand Book. The procedure requires the applicant to issue an advertisement for the goods that he wants to import, and wait for 45 days to enable the local suppliers to respond to the advertisement. All replies received by him are required to be forwarded to the respondents 1 and 2. All persons who respond to such an advertisement have also been asked to send a copy of their offer directly to respondent No. 1. Thereafter the applicant has to forward his own comments on the offers which he receives. This requirement of offering comments is not so much to enable the applicant to find fault with the local suppliers, or to enable him to explain to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 why the local offers are not being accepted by the applicant. In fact, if the goods of the requisite quality are available within the country at a reasonable price, ordinarily a person who wants such goods would be happy to purchase them locally without going through the trouble of applying for an import licence. It is, of course, possible that a person may want to import such goods for extraneous considerations, but the present case is not such a case. The procedure, therefore, which is prescribed is only to enable the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to ascertain if suitable goods are available locally. Moreover the policy does not state that if suitable goods are locally available, an import licence will not be given, nor does it state that persons who have answered the advertisement will be entitled to any order for the purchase of the goods offered by them. Individual offerers do not get, by virtue of this prescribed procedure, any direct interest or stake in the grant or refusal of an import licence to the advertiser. Their interest, if it can be called an interest, is merely as the general beneficiaries of a policy which states that local availability of such goods will be kept in mind while granting an import licence. As such beneficiaries, they have only a right to insist that the proclaimed policy is fairly administered. They do not have any right to make individual representations in an application made by somebody else. 16. It was submitted by Mr. As such beneficiaries, they have only a right to insist that the proclaimed policy is fairly administered. They do not have any right to make individual representations in an application made by somebody else. 16. It was submitted by Mr. Apdhyarujina, learned Counsel for the appellants (petitioners) that the present case is closer to "expectation cases" and therefore duty to act fairly in the present case implies a duty to give the petitioners an opportunity to meet adverse comments against them. This submission is made plausible entirely because of the use of the term "expectation". The cases which Megarry V-C considered as "expectation cases" are those cases where a person had previously acquired some interest or right and had a reasonable expectation that such a right or interest would be continued or confirmed. The petitioners in the present case do not have any such rights and there can therefore be no question of any expectation on their part that those rights will be continued. It is, however, submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they had at least an expectation that they would be heard in the matter. According to them, this expectation has been aroused (1) because of the advertisement procedure, (2) because of the deletion of two machines viz. Impact Extrusion Press and Automatic Trimming Machine from the Open General Licence category, which has been done, according to the petitioners, on account of an application made by them and lastly, (3) on account of the fact that they received a letter from respondent No. 1 dated 19-8-1981 informing the petitioners that their suggestion for banning the import of certain items of machinery required for manufacturing aluminium collapsible tubes was taken into consideration in framing the Import policy for the year 1981-82; and Impact Extrusion Press and Automatic Trimming Machine had been removed from the Open General Licence category. The letter further stated that the import of these items would only he against an import licence and that while considering the applications for import, indigenous availability would be duly kept in view. In these circumstances the petitioners claim that they had a reasonable expectation that they would be given a hearing or at least an opportunity to meet adverse comments against them. In these circumstances the petitioners claim that they had a reasonable expectation that they would be given a hearing or at least an opportunity to meet adverse comments against them. As far as the first factor is concerned, there is nothing in the advertisement procedure which arouses any expectation that a hearing would be given to the petitioners, or an opportunity would be given to them to answer adverse comments. On the contrary, the procedure makes it quite clear that comments are invited only from the person who applies for an import licence and not from anybody else. On the second point, the deletion of certain machinery from the list of items allowed to be imported under an Open General Licence does not give the petitioners any special rights. It may be that the petitioners made representations which were considered by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 while framing the Import Policy for the year 1981-82. But that does not give the petitioners any special rights of hearing in respect of any application for an import licence made under the Impart Policy for the year 1981-82. It is also difficult to see how the letter of 19th August, 1981 creates any special rights in favour of the petitioners. The letter merely states what the new Import Policy for 1981-82 states, namely that indigenous availability will be kept in view while granting an import licence for the two machines in question. No special rights are created in favour of the petitioners by virtue of this letter. Mr. Andhyarujina drew our attention to the case of Regina v. Liverpool Corporation reported in (1972) 2 QB 299. In that case Liverpool Corporation had issued taxicab licenses to 300 taxicabs. The Corporation wanted to increase the number of such licences. When the owners of taxicabs heard that the Corporation proposed to increase the number of taxicabs, their association took up the matter with the Corporation. They received a letter from the town clerk which in effect gave them an assurance and an undertaking that the Association would be heard before any decision was taken. The Corporation, however, proceeded to increase the number of licences without hearing the Taxicab Owners' Association. In these circumstances, the Court held that the Corporation had acted contrary to the principles of natural justice in not hearing the Association. The Corporation, however, proceeded to increase the number of licences without hearing the Taxicab Owners' Association. In these circumstances, the Court held that the Corporation had acted contrary to the principles of natural justice in not hearing the Association. The decision in that case is based upon the undertaking and assurance which were given on behalf of the Corporation that the Association of Taxicab Owners would be heard before any decision was taken. It was because of this special undertaking that the Court held that the Association was entitled to be heard. That case has no application to the facts of the present case, where no assurance has been held out to the petitioners that they would be heard before granting an import-licence to respondent No. 3 or anybody else. 17. In the circumstances of the present case, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appear to have acted fairly by the petitioners. Firstly, they have insisted on respondent No. 3 camplying with the procedure prescribed under the Handbook. Respondent No. 3 had originally applied for an import licence without waiting for 45 days after the issue of the requisite advertisement. The respondents 1 and 2 insisted on their waiting for the requi- site period. Secondly, as the import policy for 1981.82 removed. Impact Extrusion Press and Automatic Trimming Machine from the category of goods importable under an Open General Licence, respondents No. 3 were required to make a separate application for the import of these machines. Since the value of these two machines was less than Rupees 20 lakhs, they did not follow the advertisement procedure. There is nothing unfair or mala fide about this conduct. In any case the representations of the petitioners and the respondent No. 3 covered the entire plant including these machines. So no prejudice is caused to the petitioners by non-advertisement of these two machines. Thirdly, the recommendatory bodies, namely the Directorate General of Technical Development as well as the Capital Goods Committee had before them not merely the application of respondent No. 3 but also the offer made by the petitioners and the comments on that offer made by the respondent No. 3 and they considered the question of granting an import licence to respondent No. 3 in the light of this material. From the extract of the minutes of the meeting of the Capital Goods Committee held on 10th Sept., 1981 it appears that respondent No. 3 had been asked to approach M/s. Guest, Keen and Williams Ltd. for an Impact Extrusion Press. The petitioners had been, by then, registered with the Directorate General of Technical Development as manufacturers of Impact Extrusion Press. According to the petitioners, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 acted unfairly or mala fide in not referring respondent No. 3 to them and instead referring respondent No. 3 to someone else. But this submission cannot be accepted. The claim of the petitioners as suppliers of this machine was very much before the licensing authorities. For various cogent reasons we will refer to hereafter, their claim was considered as not a bar to the grant of an import licence. Referring respondent No. 3 to another local party does not spell out unfairness or mala fide conduct. On the contrary it indicates an anxiety to explore the possibility of local supply of the required machine. The claim of the petitioners in this connection was very much before the licensing body. In view of the representations made by the petitioners, respondents No. 1 and 2 also sent P.K. Sunkaria to ascertain the capability of the petitioners to supply the machinery in question. Although the meetings of the two recommendatory bodies were held prior to Sunkaria's visit, the final decision was taken only after the visit. It is difficult to accept the petitioners' contention that the visit was an empty formality. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have acted in an unfair manner. 18. Even on merits, there is much to be said in favour of the grant of an import licence to the respondent No. 3. There are important factors which weigh against the petitioners. The petitioners have admittedly not effected any commercial sales of such a plant in India though they claim to have manufactured such plants since 1963 and there are a number of concerns using such plants in India. They did not even disclose to respondent No. 3 the name of the party to whom they had supplied such a plant in Zambia. In any case a party wishing to purchase the plant cannot be expected to visit Zambia to inspect such a plant in operation. They did not even disclose to respondent No. 3 the name of the party to whom they had supplied such a plant in Zambia. In any case a party wishing to purchase the plant cannot be expected to visit Zambia to inspect such a plant in operation. From the material on record, there is also some doubt whether at the time when they made an offer for the supply, inter alia, of a tube latexing machine and an internal lacquering machine, the petitioners were in a position to manufacture the same, because in April, 1981, about two months after they made the offer, they placed an order for the import of these two machines. The import was made, according to the petitioners, to enable them to secure prototypes for manufacturing similar machines in India. Therefore, at least when they made the offer, they had not manufactured these machines. Thus, at the relevant time, the petitioners were not in a position to supply the entire plant. Another important factor which must weigh against the petitioners is the fact that they are themselves manufacturers of aluminium collapsible tubes and they would become direct rivals in trade of respondent No. 3 when respondent No. 3 set up their own plant to manufacture such tubes. One can understand the reluctance of respondent No. 3 to set up a plant with the help of their would be trade rivals and their reluctance to depend on such trade rivals for after-sale services. In these circumstances, even assuming that some of the comments made by the respondent No. 3 on the petitioners may or may not be accurate, the decision of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to grant an import licence to the respondent No. 3 cannot be considered either as unreasonable or as a decision which disregards the proclaimed policy of the Government. A statement that indigenous availability would be kept in view does not preclude the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 from granting an import licence simply because there are one or two local manufacturers of such goods. A statement that indigenous availability would be kept in view does not preclude the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 from granting an import licence simply because there are one or two local manufacturers of such goods. There are a number of other factors which may determine the grant or refusal of an import licence e.g. even if the goods are available locally, they may not be of the required quality, local supply may be inadequate for the demand, or there may be other factors such as those enumerated above which may make it inadvisable for the purchaser to place an order locally. Apart from these factors, there can be trade agreements between India and other countries under which such goods can be imported, or there may be package agreements which would entail import of such goods. In fact there may be a number of factors which respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have to take into account in granting an import licence. Local availability is only one of the factors to be kept in mind while granting an import licence, and in the present case respondents Nos. 1 and 2 appear to have kept this factor in mind in granting the import licence to respondent No. 3. In their affidavit, respondents 1 and 2 have set out some of the reasons for granting an import licence to respondent No. 3. Unfortunately, the affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2 in this connection leaves much to be desired. It repeats some of the objections taken by respondent No. 3 to the offer made by the petitioners. These objections are not based on an accurate data concerning the petitioners. The affidavit, however, is made only on the basis of such records as are available at the Bombay office of respondents 1 and 2, and these don't amount to much. In fact, apart from an extract from the minutes of the 17th meeting of the Capital Goods Committee held on 10th Sept., 1981 and a "letter" dated 7th Nov., 1981 signed by A.K. Banerjee, Assistant Economic Advisor in the Secretariat for Industrial Approvals, no other record was produced at the hearing of the appeal. Not much value can, therefore, be attached to the statements in this affidavit. 19. The petitioners have submitted that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have acted mala fide in granting the licence. Not much value can, therefore, be attached to the statements in this affidavit. 19. The petitioners have submitted that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have acted mala fide in granting the licence. This submission must also be rejected in view of the facts which have been set out earlier. The petitioners had also pleadad promissory estoppel. There does not appear to be any representation made by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to the petitioners that their machinery would be purchased by the respondent No. 3 or that no import licence will be granted in respect of the machinery which is being manufactured by the petitioners. It is also difficult to see how the petitioners can be said to have acted to their disadvantage pursuant to any such representation. The petitioners have also not pressed this ground in the appeal. 20. The decision of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 does not cast any slur on the petitioners. In fact, it is merely a decision to grant an import licence to the respondent No, 3. It has no bearing on the reputation of the petitioners. 21. It was submitted by Mr. Noorani, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, that the petitioners had suppressed a number of facts from the Court and hence their petition should be rejected. There is some substance in this grievance. But the suppression does not appear to be so serious as to justify a dismissal of the petition on this ground alone. We need not go into this aspect of the matter since even on merits we are satisfied that the petitioners have no case. 22. The conduct of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, however, in the present case has been somewhat unsatisfactory. They did not comply with the order of the trial Court to give inspection of certain documents to the petitioners. Even the affidavit which they filed in reply to the petition leaves much to be desired. This is an affidavit based on such records as are available in Bombay. Quite clearly the record pertaining to the application of respondent No. 3 for an import licence is not in Bombay and none was produced in Court except for the two documents referred to earlier. This is an affidavit based on such records as are available in Bombay. Quite clearly the record pertaining to the application of respondent No. 3 for an import licence is not in Bombay and none was produced in Court except for the two documents referred to earlier. The reasons given in the affidavit for granting an import licence to the respondent No. 3 appear to be based on surmises of the draftsman rather than on the record of the application for the import licence. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming as to why the record in the possession of respondents 1 and 2 relating to the application of respondent No. 3 for the import licence in question was not availed of by respondents 1 and 2 and why a proper affidavit in reply was not filed on their behalf although there was sufficient time for this purpose available to respondents 1 and 2. Nor is any explanation given by respondents 1 and 2 for their failure to give inspection as ordered. In view this unsatisfactory conduct, we do not propose to grant to the respondents Nos.1 and 2 any costs. In the premises, the appeal is dismissed. Appellants will pay to respondent No. 3 the costs of the appeal. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 will bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.