C. M. Nayar, J. ( 1 ) THE present judgment will dispose of C. W. P. Nos. 2220/96 (Murugappa Trading Company and others v. Union of India and others) and 3271/96 (Arif M. Hussain and others v. Union of India and others ). ( 2 ) THE facts as alleged in the writ petitions are that the petitioners are the registered exporters of Textiles under the Powerloom Sector. Respondent No. 1 is the Ministry of Textiles which is Incharge of the distribution of quota for export of textile to quota and non-quota countries. The Import-Export Policy under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act is laid down by respondent No. 2. The Textile Commissioner, respondent No. 3 is the functionary of respondent No. 1 and is responsible for the overall textile quota administered by respondent No. 4. The distribution of quota is delegated to respondent No. 4. The petitioners in both the petitions are aggrieved by the action of the respondent whereby the quota entitlement for the year 1996 in the Powerloom Exporters Entitlement (PEE) has been reduced from 10 per cent to 5 per cent. The quota of 10% was fixed vide notification issued on September 16, 1995, the operative portion of which may be reproduced as follows: "notification NO. 1/65/95-EP (TANDJ)I Dated 16-9-1995 SUBJECT: Conditions applicable for the period 1994-96 for exports in respect of certain yarn, Fabrics and Made-up items to countries where such exports are covered by restraints under the provisions of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing. ATTENTION is invited to Notification No. 1/4/94-EP (Tandj)I dated the 4th September, 1993 which was amended subsequently by Notification number 1/4/95-EP (Tandj)I dated the 24th June, 1994, No. 1/65/94-EP (Tandj)I dated the 21st October, 1994, 2nd December, 1994, 20th December, 1994, 11th and 12th January, 1995 on the above mentioned subject. 2. Sub-paras 4 (i) and (ii) of the Notification shall be substituted by the following: "i) Quantities for export in the allotment year 1996 shall be allocated according to the following systems at rates indicated against each of them. II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " The petitioners contend that subsequently the quota was arbitrarily reduced to five per cent vide notification issued on November 27, 1995 whose operative portion reads as under: