A. P. RAVANI, D. G. KARIA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER No. 1 is a proprietory concern and petitioner No. 2 is the proprietor thereof. Hereinafter petitioners are referred to as the petitioner. The petitioner manufactures garments and exports ready-made garments. The petitioner feel aggrieved by a change in the export policy made by notice dated 7/03/1984 Respondent-Government of India issued a public notice dated 14/09/1983 and declared a scheme for exports under OGL 3 of Garments and Knitwear to the USA. EEC Member States Australia Finland and Canada for the period commencing from 1/01/1984 to 31/12/1984 The Government issued another notice dated March 1984 and made certain changes in the export scheme. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the change introduced by public notice dated 7/03/1984 and has prayed that the respondents be directed to calculate the export quota without taking into consideration the deemed surrendered pan of the export pursuant to the public notice 1984 and has also prayed for other consequential reliefs. The challenge to the change in the policy is on the ground that it is unseasonable and arbitrary and it is contrary to the earlier policy declaration made on 14/09/1983 and it nullifies the earlier policy declaration. It is submitted that the Government cannot make retrospective amendment in the policy and the Government is estopped from making changes in the policy because the Government is also bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was issued certificate of entitlement dated 17/12/1983 As per this entitlement the petitioner was allotted export quota of 34 250 pieces of different types of garments falling in category No. 338/39/ 40 to the United States of America. The certificate of entitlement specifically stated that it was subject to all the terms and conditions stipulated in public notice dated 14/09/1983 and as amended from time to time and subject any other conditions notified from time to time by the Apparels Export Promotion Councils i. e. Respondent No. 3 herein. The certificate was valid for export entitlement upto 31/05/1984 After M 31/05/1984 the certificate-holder was required to submit bank guarantee for requisite amount and should have validated the certificate upto 31 Clause 4 of the certificate reads as follows:"the acceptance of the certificate by the exporter will automatically amount to his agreeing to all the terms and conditions referred to above". As per the aforesaid certificate the petitioner was entitled to export 34 250 pieces of garments of different categories. As per the original policy declaration the entire period of the year commencing from 1-4-1984 to 31-12-1984 was the period during which goods could have been exported. By introducing the change in policy vide notice dated 7/03/1984 the period of export was divided into two parts. The first period was 1 to 30-4-1984 which was extended upto 31/05/1984 by notice dated 2/05/1984 The second period was from 1/06/198 4/10/1984 The petitioner has not exported any garments whatsoever during the first part of the year i. e. between 1/01/198 4/05/1984 The petitioner exported 12 94 pieces of garments during the next half of the period. During the extended period beyond 15/10/1984 the petitioner sought to export 5 36 pieces of garments by fulfilling the conditions mentioned in clause 4 by furnishing bank guarantee. However the country (i. e. U. S. A.) to which the said consignment was to be exported did not permit export as the overall quota fixed for export to U. S. A. was already achieved. ( 3 ) FOR the year 1985 similar policy declaration was made by the Government on 15/09/1984 The petitioner wrote letter dated 16/10/1984 (Annexure - B) requesting respondent No. 3 to permit him to utilise the quota of 1984 in the month of January 1986 indicating that the petitioner had received orders of large quantities from U. S. A. buyers for October/december 1984. It may be noted that on account of the embargo imposed by the Government of U. S. A. the petitioner could not export 5036 pieces for which the petitioner had furnished bank guarantee as required under clause 4 of the policy. Since the petitioner could not export the same quantity the petitioner requested for realising the bank guarantee by letter dated 2/01/1985 ( 4 ) IT is evident that on account of the deemed surrender of the quota for the first half of the year 1984 and on account of the lesser utilisation of the quota for the next half the petitioner quota for the subsequent year i. e. 1985 stood reduced. It may be noted that the base period and criterion for the determination of the entitlement to quota for the year 1985 was the export performance during the years 1982 1983 and first half of 1984. It may be noted that the base period and criterion for the determination of the entitlement to quota for the year 1985 was the export performance during the years 1982 1983 and first half of 1984. In the case of the petitioner the petitioner had not exported anything in the first half of 1984 and had not fulfilled the quota of export for the later half of the year 1984. Thus the petitioners quota for the subsequent years stood reduced. After the year 1984 was over and even after the first half of the year 1985 had almost come to end the petitioner filed this petition on 29/04/1985 challenging the change in the policy introduced by notice dated 7/03/1984 ( 5 ) THE scheme for exports for the year 1984 (January 1984 to Dece December 1984) was declared on 14/09/1983 It is produced at Annexure-A to the petition. Paragraph 2 of the scheme deals with agencies for administration of the scheme. Para 3 refers to systems and quantum of allotment which is as follows:as far as the system and quantum of allotment is concerned it is specifically mentioned in para 3 (11) of the scheme that the Government reserved the right to use flexibilities provided in the bilataral agreements as considered appropriate. Para 4 of the scheme deals with division of the allotment year and apportionment of quantities among periods. This paragraph has been changed by notice dated 7/03/1984 Therefore it would be appropriate to place the original and the changed paragraph in juxtaposition. Both the paragraphs are reproduced herein below: DIVISION OF THE ALLOTMENT YEAR AND APPORTIONMENT OF QUANTITIES AMONG PERIODS as per Notice Dt. 14-9-1983 (1) In the case of Past Performance and Manufacturer-Exporters Systems the full calendar year will be considered as one period for the purpose of allotment of quantities for export. In the case of Central/state Corporation and FCFS Small Orders Systems the year will be divided into 3 four-monthly periods namely January-April May-August and September- December in the case of woven items and into two periods namely January-August September-December for knitted items. In these two systems quantities for woven items will be distributed along the three period in the As per Notice Dt. 7-3-1984 In the case of Manufacturer-Exporters systems the full calendar year will be considered as one period for the purpose of allotment of quantities for export. In these two systems quantities for woven items will be distributed along the three period in the As per Notice Dt. 7-3-1984 In the case of Manufacturer-Exporters systems the full calendar year will be considered as one period for the purpose of allotment of quantities for export. In the case of Central/state Corporation and FCFS Small Orders Systems the year will be divided into 3 four-monthly periods namely January-April May-August ande September-December in the case of woven items and into two periods namely January-August September-December for knitted items. In these two systems quantities for woven items will be distributed among the three periods in the ratio 50:35:15 ratio of 50:35:15 whereas the quantities for knitted items will be distributed between the two periods in the ratio of 85:15. (11) The above percentage may be readjusted from time to time by Government depending upon trends in the overseas market. whereas the quantities for knitted items will be distributed between the two periods in the ratio of 85:15. For the purpose of utilisation of Past Performance entitlements the year will be divided into two periods. The first period would cover the first four months of the calendar year; and the second the period from 1 to 15/10/1984. A minimum of 50% of the Past Performance Entitlement as originally calculated on the basis of base period performance should be utilised in the first 4 months i. e. upto 30-4-1984. The unutilised balance out of 50 would be deemed to be automatically surrendered. Furthermore the balance 50% Past Performance Entitlement would have to be utilised by 15/10/1984 and the balance quantity would be deemed to be automatically surrendered unless its validity is extended in accordance with 14 (1 ). Later on by notice dated 2/05/1984 first part of the period is extended upto 31/05/1984 and second period started from 1/06/1984 upto 15/10/1984 ( 6 ) FOR the purpose of allotment of quantities for export in respect of past performance and manufacturer-exporters system the full calendar year will be considered as one period. In case of first come first serve small orders system the period was divided into 3 four-monthly periods namely January-April May-August and September-December. It also provides for distribution of quantities for woven items. Clause (11) of para 4 reads as follows:"the above percentage may be readjusted from time to time by Government depending upon trends in the overseas market". In case of first come first serve small orders system the period was divided into 3 four-monthly periods namely January-April May-August and September-December. It also provides for distribution of quantities for woven items. Clause (11) of para 4 reads as follows:"the above percentage may be readjusted from time to time by Government depending upon trends in the overseas market". Para 5 of the scheme deals with reservation of segments: and para 6 deals with agency for calculation of Past Performance Entitlement and Eligibility for Past Performance Entitlement. In this petition we are concerned with Past Performance entitlement and not concerned with the provisions with regard to First-come First-serve Small Orders System Manufacturer-Exporters System and Central/ State Corporations Systems. The other relevant part is contained in para 14 which deals with earnest money deposit bank guarantees and forfeiture thereof. In para 20 of the scheme it is stated that the Government reserved the right to make amendments to any of the foregoing provisions without giving prior notice. By notice dated 7/03/1984 the Government has introduced changes in para 4 (i) of the policy which is under challenge. Original para 4 and the change introduced has been reproduced hereinabove. ( 7 ) FROM the aforesaid analysis of the export scheme it is evident that as far as the past performance entitlements are concerned the year is divided into two periods. The first period is from January 1 to 31/05/1984 and the second period is from 1/06/198 4/10/1984 An exporter who has obtained entitlement was required to utilise minimum 50% of the past performance entitlement calculated on the basis of base period performance in first five months i. e. upto 31/05/1984 Unutilised balance out of 50 was to be deemed to be automatically surrendered. Balance 50% of the past performance was required to be utilised by 15/10/1984 and the balance quantity was deemed to be automatically surrendered unless its validity is extended in accordance with the provisions of clause 14 (1) which inter alia provided for furnishing earnest money deposit or bank guarantee. Validity could be extended upto 31/12/1984 against specific contract backed by L/c subject to submission of bank guarantee at the rate of 20% of FOB value. Validity could be extended upto 31/12/1984 against specific contract backed by L/c subject to submission of bank guarantee at the rate of 20% of FOB value. It may be noted that this change in para 14 has also been introduced by public notice dated 7/03/1984 ( 8 ) AN exporter who has exported in the relevant country during the year 198 2/01/1983 is considered eligible for past performance entitlement. The base period for determination of quota for the year 1984 is the year 1981 1982 and January-June 1983 The petetitioner contends that the change introduced is unreasonable and is contrary to the earlier policy declaration of 14/09/1983 and it nullifies the earlier policy declaration. If the initial policy declaration of 14/09/1983 is examined in its entirety the contention cannot be accepted. Be it noted that the policy declaration is in respect of export trade. International trade is a very complex business. Various factors enter into determination demand and supply of the article in question in domestic market demand and supply of the same commodity at a particular time in the foreign market and that too in particular country changes in the business and trade circumstances in the domestic market as well as in the foreign market response to the scheme given by the domestic exporters response received from foreign buyers changes in the policy of foreign countries competing actions and reactions of the competing countries as far as foreign market is concerned. These are some of the various considerations which are required to be taken into consideration by the framers of the policy in respect of trade. This is the reason why in the policy declaration of 14/09/1983 it is stated in para 3 which deals with systems and quantum of allotment that the Government reserves the right to use flexibilities provided in the bilateral agreements as considered appropriate. ( 9 ) SIMILARLY with regard to the division of allotment and apportionment of quantities among periods it is stated in the policy declaration that the percentage may be readjusted from time to time by Government depending upon the trends in the overseas market. In clause 20 of the policy declaration the Government has specifically reserved the right to itself to make amendments to any of the provisions without giving prior notice. In clause 20 of the policy declaration the Government has specifically reserved the right to itself to make amendments to any of the provisions without giving prior notice. Thus the policy declaration itself gives notice to all concerned that the declaration is not a straight- jacket rigid formula to be adhered to by the Government and it will not be an iron-clad rigid policy which could not be changed suitably even during the period for which it has been declared. So the contention that the Government has made policy declaration for the year 1984 and the Government could not have changed it during the currency of the year has no merits. This is so because the policy makes it clear that even in respect of the systems the Government may make changes and in respect of the division of the allotment and apportionment of quantities amongst the parties the Government may re-adjust the same from time to time depending upon the trends in the overseas market. After making this specific provision for introducing changes even during the course of the year the Government has reserved the right to make amendment specifically by clause 20 to any of the provisions of the policy without giving prior notice. Thus there is no unequivocal promise. To the promisee i. e. to the exporter the promissor has made it clear that the policy is subject to change even during the currency of the year. ( 10 ) IN view of the aforesaid position the question arises - Is the change introduced contrary to the earlier policy and does it nullify the earlier policy declaration ? The change introduced cannot be said to be contrary to the policy declaration It is on the contrary in consonance with the policy declaration Clause 4 of the policy provided for division of allotment of year and apportionment of quantities among periods It is provided in the scheme itself that the same may be readjusted from time to time by the Government Be it noted that the overall entitlement quota which in case of the petitioner was 34 250 pieces of garments was not changed The change introduced related to the period In short the period was divided into two parts instead of the whole year Again this has been done with reasonable notice. In the first week of March 1984 exporters have been told that they are required to avail of 50% of their quota by the end of 30/04/1984 Thus there was a period of about little less than two months for exporting the requisite quantity of goods Again this time was extended upto 31/05/1984 by notice dated 31/05/1984 Thus even when the change has been introduced sufficient time has been given to the quota-holders to utilise their export entitlement. ( 11 ) DURING the currency of the year the petitioner never raised grievance as regards the changes introduced. ( 11 ) DURING the currency of the year the petitioner never raised grievance as regards the changes introduced. The petitioner did not even state that the petitioner was led by the policy declaration and he remained confident that the policy will remain in operation unchanged for the entire period of the year and relying on this position he did not make any effort for utilising the export entitlement during the first half of the year 1984 There is nothing in the petition to show that the petitioner changed his position on account of the policy declaration made by the Government It is not indicated in the petition that though there were foreign buyers for the period commencing from January to May 1984 the petitioner refused to accept the orders There is nothing in the petition that the petitioner had already manufactured sufficient quantity of garments during the first half of the year which could have been exported but the petitioner did not export the same relying upon the policy declaration No material whatsoever is placed on record to show that it was on account of the declaration of the policy in September 1988 that the petitioner remained confident about the policy declaration relied upon the same and changed his position ( 12 ) ASSUMING for a moment that the petitioner relied upon the policy declaration made in September 1983 and changed position by remaining idle and inactive then also the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked for the following reasons (A) That the policy declaration of 14/09/1983 itself made it clear in Clause 4 that the division of allotment year and the apportionment of quantities among periods may be readjusted from time to time by the Government depending upon the trends in the overseas market (B) The policy also made it clear that the Government would make change in the entire policy without giving prior notice Even so while making the changes in the apportionment of the period reasonable notice of three months has been given (C) During the currency of the year the petitioner never submitted that the period of little less than three months given for fulfilments of the utilisation was unreasonable (D) No material whatsoever is produced on record to show that for this period the petitioner tried to obtain orders from foreign buyers but the petitioner should not obtain the same on account of insufficiency of time. While introducing the change sufficient time has been granted Initially about two months time was granted which has been extended by one month more. (E) There is no retrospective change in the policy The change introduced is in conformity with the original policy declaration Therefore the action of the Government even without examining the reasons for change cannot be said to be in any way unreasonable ( 13 ) IT may be noted that when the petitioner accepted entitlement certificate the petitioner by accepting the certificate agreed to all the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy and in the certificate Therefore the petitioner also agreed to the reasonable changes that may be made in the policy Now the petitioner is estopped from raising the contention that there is change in the policy and the Government is not entitled to make the changes If at all there is a case of promissory estoppel it is against the petitioner and not against the Government ( 14 ) IN para 4 of the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 i. e. Government of India it is inter alia stated that in early January it was reported that past performance export entitlement was misused by few exporters and after examining the situation it was felt that the change in the policy be made In para 3 (ii) of the affidavit-in-reply it is stated as follows"in early January 1984 it was reported that PPE was being misused by a few exporters who cornered bulk of the available quotas and committed various malpractices like selling their PPE at premium and hoarding of quotas The situation was thoroughly examined and it was found that the spurt of exports to the USA had generated enormous pressure on quotas for that country Data available showed that in January 1984 exports to the USA market were more by 171. 88% in quantity terms and 219. 23% in value terms as compared to export in January 1983 Although total exports to the USA had shown spectacular rise various representations had been received which showed that the utilisation of PPEs in the USA market had been slow. On the other hand there were indications that trading was going on in PPE at high premia. This was not a very desirable situation and some corrective measures had to be applied. On the other hand there were indications that trading was going on in PPE at high premia. This was not a very desirable situation and some corrective measures had to be applied. This situation created by the boom in the USA market was rather abnormal This situation did not exist in other markets notably the EEC Member- States". In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 it is stated as follows"it was found that exporters holding past performance quota entitlement were retaining the same and were utilising the entitlement under the system of first come first serve (FCFS) of their own and/or their associate concerns It is stated that PPQ is transferable/saleable however transferee of such PPQ cannot sell it further and can utilise it by making export It is a check to stop speculation as the transferee has to utilise the PPQ Otherwise it is waste pieces of paper for him In fact Government felt that it would give a set back to the export and ultimately it will result into producing the earning of foreign exchange Not only this much such situation if permitted to continue would have also affected bilateral agreement with different Governments and export of ready made garments Further exporters holding PPQ would have created monopoly while holding PPQ and making export under F. C. F. S. system Hence the export policy was being misused So Government thought it fit that the person holding the PPQ entitlement must export at least 50 per cent of the entitlement on or before April 1984 which in the circumstances cannot be said to be unreasonable or mala fide restriction Furthermore it was curtailing the rights of those small exporters who have no past export and so were not entitled to PPQ and were solely depending on FCFS system This would also give chance to new genuine exports to have field in earning of foreign exchange ( 15 ) THE aforesaid averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondents indicate that the change introduced was necessitated to prevent malpractice indulged into by some of the exporters It was necessary to prevent the mischief of utilising the transferability of past performance quota with a view to encourage the small manufacturers and it was also necessary with a view to see that the foreign exchange earnings are augmented. Thus even if one were to examine the grounds for introducing the change in the policy it is evident that the change has been made due to just and reasonable grounds. On the contrary had the Government not taken corrective steps the malpractices or speculation and cornering of quota and such other manipulative malpractices would have continued. Even while introducing the change care is taken to see that reasonable time is given to the exporters. Therefore a genuine exporters who is not interested in indulging in malpractices and who is not misusing his quota may not suffer. ( 16 ) IT is contended that for the second part of the year 1984 the petitioner could not utilise his export quota fully because of the change in the policy. We fail to understand how the petitioner can connect lesser utilisation of 50% of export entitlement to the change in policy. The original position was that during the entire period of one year at any time one could utilise his export entitlement. lead the petitioner relied upon the original policy of September 1983 then he should have and he would have been able to export more than 50% of his entitlement. Had he relied upon the Government policy of September 1983 he would have wailed for the later half of the year to come and in that later half he would have made arrangements to export the entire quota of his entitlement. But as the facts stand he has not exported even 50% of his quota which comes to 17 130 pieces. Instead the petitioner has exported only 12 94 pieces of garments. For the extended period after 1 5/10/1984 the petitioner tried to export 5036 pieces of garments. However E on account of the embargo placed by the U. S. A. Government he could not export the same. The embargo had not been placed by the U. S. A. Government on account of the change in the policy introduced by the Government of India. As indicated in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 some unscrupulous exporters had overutilised their quota entitlement for exports to U. S. A. As indicated in the affidavit-in-reply such persons might have even forged the documents for making exports and dubious practices of the members of the petitioners fraternity has caused some difficulty to the petitioner. As indicated in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 some unscrupulous exporters had overutilised their quota entitlement for exports to U. S. A. As indicated in the affidavit-in-reply such persons might have even forged the documents for making exports and dubious practices of the members of the petitioners fraternity has caused some difficulty to the petitioner. It is not the change in the policy of the Government which has put the petitioner to any difficulty. For such activity of the members of the petitioners fraternity the Government cannot be blamed. Similarly if for any reason whatsoever the U. S. A. Government places embargo on imports and refuses to allow imports in its own country the same cannot be related with the policy change made by public notice dated 7/03/1984 Thus for the incomplete fulfilment of 50% of the quota of later half change in the Government policy is not responsible. ( 17 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:1 Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Union of India reported in AIR 1987 SC 2414 . 2 Asst. Commissioner Commercial Taxes (Asst.) v. Dharmendra Trading Co. reported in AIR 1988 SC 1247 3 Iqramuddin v. Nizamuddin reported in AIR 1991 Rajasthan p. 42on the basis of the aforesaid decisions it was submitted that for invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel the petitioner is not required to show that the petitioner has changed his position to his detriment. All that is required to be shown by the petitioner is (A) that there is policy declaration; (B) that the petitioner relied upon the same; and (C) that he altered his position by relying upon the policy declaration. In his submission it is not necessary for the promisee in this case the petitioner to show that he had altered his position to his detriment. ( 18 ) AS far as the law relating to promissory estoppel is concerned the same has been well sealed by a series of Supreme Court decisions commencing from the case of Union of India v. Indo-Afgan Agencies Ltd. reported in AIR 1988 SC 71 and thereafter in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (1979) 2 SCC 409 . The law laid down by the Supreme Court has been reiterated recently in the case of Vasantkumar Radhakisan Vora. (P) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (1979) 2 SCC 409 . The law laid down by the Supreme Court has been reiterated recently in the case of Vasantkumar Radhakisan Vora. v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay reported in (1991) I SCC 761. In short the principle of promissory estoppel is that where one party has by his word or conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise or representation which is intended to create legal relations or affect a legal relationship to arise in the future knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise or representation is made and it is in fact so acted upon by the other party the promise or representation would be binding on the party making it and he would be entitled to go back upon it. If it would be inequitable to allow him to do so having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is now well established one in the field of administrative law. This principle has been evolved by equity to avoid injustice. ( 19 ) ANALYSING the aforesaid principle the following picture emerges: (1) that there should be clear unequivocal promise or representation intending to create legal relations or affecting legal relationship which may arise in future; (2) such promise or representation should be with an intention that it would be acted upon by the other side/party to whom promise or representation is made; (3) in fact the other party should have acted upon such promise or representation; (4) the promise or representation so made would be binding upon the party making it and such party would not be entitled to go back upon it: (5) Provided however the party making such promise may be permitted to go back if it is inequitable to force him to perform the same. ( 20 ) THE aforesaid doctrine of promissory estoppel recognises certain exceptions which can be summarised as follows: (I) that there could be no promissory estoppel against the legislature in exercise of its legislative function; (II) that the Government or public authority cannot be debarred by promissory estoppel from enforcing a statutory prohibition; (III) that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be used to compel the Government or a public authority to carry out a representation or promise which is contrary to law; (IV) that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is not applicable in cases where the authority or power of the officer of the Government or of the public authority is outside the authority of the power to make that; and (V) that the doctrine of promissory estoppel being an equitable doctrine it must yield when the equity so requires. If it can be shown by the Government that having regard to the facts as they have subsequently transpired it would be inequitable to hold the Government to the promise made by it the Court would not raise any equity in favour of the promise and enforce the promise against the Government. . ( 21 ) APPLYING the aforesaid principles of law as regards the doctrine of promissory estoppel to the facts and circumstances of the case first of all one must understand as to what is the promise made by the Government. . ( 21 ) APPLYING the aforesaid principles of law as regards the doctrine of promissory estoppel to the facts and circumstances of the case first of all one must understand as to what is the promise made by the Government. The promise sought to be read as in the policy declaration of 14/09/1983 As indicated hereinabove in the original policy declaration it is made clear by clause 20 of the policy that any of the provisions of the policy declaration may be amended by the Government without giving notice Again as regards the systems and quantity or allotment is concerned by which different categories of exporters have been allotted certain percentage of the annual level of 1984 export The Government has reserved the right to use the flexibilities provided in the bilateral agreement as considered appropriate With regard to the change which is under consideration as regards division of allotment year and apportionment of quantities among periods it is specifically stated in clause 4 of the Scheme that the percentage of allotment may be readjusted from time to time by the Government depending upon the constraints in the overseas market Thus in the policy declaration itself there is categorical statement that the policy may be changed with regard to the division of allotment period and apportionment of quantities to be exported will be readjusted from time to time Thus there is no unequivocal promise whatsoever On the contrary there is categorical assertion that the policy is subject to change both in respect of specific points and apportionment of quantities to be exported and there is also categorical assertion as regards the changes which may be in general The petitioner has accepted the export entitlement subject to the contingency of these changes and realising full well the risk involved in the business Moreover there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner has altered his position relying on the policy declaration made by the Government Therefore the very basis of invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel is not existing in the instant case ( 22 ) ASSUMING for a moment that there is a promise on the basis of the policy declaration made vide public notice dated 14/09/1983 then also all that would be required of the Government is that the Government cannot make policy change unreasonably and arbitrarily In fact that is the basis of the petition The main ground of challenge in the petition is that the Government has acted unreasonably while making policy change This is evident from the averments made in para 4 of the affidavit-in-rejoinder dated 19/02/1988 wherein it is stated by the petitioner that the petitioner did agree to the terms and conditions of public notice dated 14/09/1983 but it was only open for the respondent to amend the said conditions contained in the public notice dated 14/09/1983 reasonably and not unreasonably and in any arbitrary manner Therefore the question arises Has the Government acted unreasonably and arbitrarily ? As indicated hereinabove reasonable notice of three months has been given for fulfilling 50% of the export quota for the first part of the year This change has been introduced for the reasons which have been indicated in the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No. 1 and also by respondent discussed hereinabove It is not even argued that the reasons for change in the policy are irrelevant or extraneous or that they did not exist Therefore it cannot be said that the change has been introduced unreasonably and arbitrarily ( 23 ) ON the contrary it appears that the change introduced is in public interest. It was with a view to see that the foreign exchange earnings are not reduced and that the manipulation indulged into by the unscrupulous exporters are prevented and speculation in export trade is kept in check Thus even assuming for a moment that there is unequivocal promise and that the petitioner has altered his position relying upon the promise then even the change introduced being in public interest adhere to its earlier promise ( 24 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has filed the petition on 29/04/1985 i. e. after a period of little over one year from the date of change in the policy When the petitioner accepted the export entitlement certificate dated 17/12/1983 the petitioner by his conduct accepted the terms and conditions in policy declaration dated 14/09/1983 and also accepted to abide by the changes that may be made in the policy. It is further contended that during the entire period of the year the petitioner never raised grievance as regards the policy change. On the contrary the petitioner accepted the same and tried to utilise export entitlement during the currency of the year. The policy of export schemes for the year 1985 was declared on 15/09/1984 Even at that stage the petitioner did not raise any grievance for the projected decrease in the export entitlement of the subsequent years. Therefore it is submitted that both on account of delay and the consistent conduct of the petitioner in acquiescing in the change in the policy the petitioner is not entitled to claim relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We see much force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents. Therefore it is submitted that both on account of delay and the consistent conduct of the petitioner in acquiescing in the change in the policy the petitioner is not entitled to claim relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We see much force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents. However even on merits the petitioner has not been able to make out any case. Therefore even though the petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay latches and acquiescence we are not rejecting the petition on this technical ground alone. ( 25 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons either taken individually or considering the same cumulatively the petition is liable to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected. Rule discharged. (DKM) petition rejected. .