JUDGMENT 1. - The challenges witnessed in these proceedings, and mounted in succession, on the notifications/letter /circular, dated 2-6-2008, 26-3-2009 and 7-5-2012, in common, seek annulment of the decision to prohibit clearances/supplies by Export Oriented Undertakings/Units (for short, hereafter also referred to as 'EOU') of finished marble products in Domestic Tariff Area (for short, hereafter referred to as 'DTA') under Paragraph 6.9(b) of the Foreign Trade Policy (for short, also referred to as 'FTP' 2004-2009 and 2009-2014. Having regard to the identicalness of focal issue seeking adjudication, these petitions have been analogously heard for judicial resolution of the surging debate. 2. We have heard Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vineet Dave & Mr. Dinesh Mehta for the petitioners and Mr. V.K. Mathur with Mr. Ankur Mathur, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The competing pleaded versions would outline the essential facts. To limit the factual narration to the bare minimum, pleadings of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5459/2012, being all encompassing, would be adverted to. 4. The petitioner has introduced itself to be a private limited company incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 established for the purpose of setting up an industrial unit for manufacture of marble slabs, tiles and dressed marble blocks at Udaipur in the State of Rajasthan. It has averred that the Government of India, with a view to boost exports to capture greater share of global trade, had been formulating import and export policies from time to time. In furtherance of this objective, amongst others, a concept of Export Processing Zone (also referred to as 'EPZ') was developed in the year 1965 and such zones were established at various places in the country. However, as this initiative could not achieve the expected growth of exports, in its policy framed by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India in the year 1980, the concept, of Export Oriented Undertakings/Units was entertained and introduced, where under such a unit could be established at the choice of the promoter/existing company. Various refinements, modifications and fine tunning, coupled with liberalization in export and import policy, customs & excise laws and procedures and relaxation in export obligations, were introduced, whereby the EOUs have earned its place of importance amongst the exporting community. 5. Various refinements, modifications and fine tunning, coupled with liberalization in export and import policy, customs & excise laws and procedures and relaxation in export obligations, were introduced, whereby the EOUs have earned its place of importance amongst the exporting community. 5. The Parliament also enacted the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Act') to ensure statutory regulation of foreign trade and promotion of exports, where under in terms of Section 3, the Government of India is empowered to make provision for development and regulation of foreign trade by facilitating imports and increasing exports. Section 5 of the enactment authorised the Government of India to formulate and announce export and import policy, and also to amend other policies. As a consequence of such statutory conferment, the Government of India, in exercise of power under Sections 3 and 5 of the legislation, has been framing export and import policy from time to time with a visible thrust to encourage the entrepreneurs to promote exports to enable it to earn foreign exchange and to acquire greater share of global trade. The export and import policies and foreign trade policies, in view of this legislation, have thus acquired statutory force. 6. According to the petitioner, in view of the attractive and progressive policies of the Government of India encouraging the gainful prospects arising therefrom, it converted its unit to an EOU and applied to the Government of India for obtaining a Letter of Permission (also referred to as 'LOP'), which was granted on 24-3-2000. Following this, an agreement was entered into between the Government of India and the petitioner, in terms whereof, it (petitioner) was required to achieve minimum export performance for a period of five years from the date of commencement thereof, as prescribed, in addition to other obligations to be discharged by it. Parallelly, the petitioner, in order to meet its other incidental obligations, applied for grant of license for bonded warehouse under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 and also the permission for manufacturing in Bond under Section 65 thereof, whereupon necessary permissions were granted to it by the concerned authorities. 7. Parallelly, the petitioner, in order to meet its other incidental obligations, applied for grant of license for bonded warehouse under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 and also the permission for manufacturing in Bond under Section 65 thereof, whereupon necessary permissions were granted to it by the concerned authorities. 7. According to the petitioner, it thereafter, having successfully functioned as an EOU for over a year and being inspired by the concessions extended to the EOU as well as the liberal policy of the Government of India, decided to expand its operations by making further investments. It thus, sought for necessary amendments in the LOP granted to it, so as to enable it to increase its manufacturing capacity of marble blocks/tiles. The permission so applied for, was granted by the competent authority on 22-1-2003, and based thereon, the petitioner enhanced its capacity by making huge investments in its business. On its application for inclusion of additional items for exports from time to time, the same came to be granted by the authorities concerned, last thereof being on 26-11-2008 permitting it to manufacture and export all types of dressed blocks of artificial stones, slabs and tiles made therefrom. The validity of such permission, as contained in this letter, was thereafter extended upto 31-3-2015, and the petitioner entered into a revised agreement with the Government of India, which was accepted by the competent authority on 13-4-2010. 8. The petitioner has averred that prior to 31-8-2005, an EOU was entitled to effect sales in DTA to the extent permissible under Paragraphs 6.8(a) & 6.8(h) of the FTP 2004-2009. However, by notification dated 31-8-2005 the EOUs were prohibited from selling marble in DTA, in terms of the above mentioned Paragraphs of the FTP. Impacted by the adverse bearing of the said notification, the petitioner challenged the same before this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5811/2005, in which on 26-10-2005, an interim order was passed permitting the petitioner to effect DTA sales on payment of full duties under Paragraphs 6.8(a) & 6.8(h) of the FTP 2004-2009. Impacted by the adverse bearing of the said notification, the petitioner challenged the same before this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5811/2005, in which on 26-10-2005, an interim order was passed permitting the petitioner to effect DTA sales on payment of full duties under Paragraphs 6.8(a) & 6.8(h) of the FTP 2004-2009. While the matter rested at that, the Central Government filed transfer petitions before the Hon'ble Apex Court for transfer of this writ petition along with those filed by two other EOUs before this Court as well as pending in the other High Courts carrying the same challenge, and eventually, by its decision rendered therein in M/s. Hindustan Granites v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2007 SC (Supp.) 299 = 2007 (211) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) , it negated the same. 9. Subsequent thereto, by letter dated 2-6-2008 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, 142-B, Hiran Magri, Sector-11, Udaipur, DTA clearances under Paragraph 6.9(b) of the FTP 2004-2009 were prohibited. Being aggrieved as hereby its supplies in the DTA were sought to be banned, the petitioner instituted D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4450/2008, impeaching the same. This Court on 29-7-2008, as an interim measure, stayed the operation of this letter and permitted the petitioner to make clearances of marble at full rate of duty, subject to the final outcome of the writ proceeding. According to the petitioner, out of the supplies made by it, it earned foreign exchange in USD equivalent to Rs. 301.63 lacs thus, contributing to the foreign exchange reserves of the country, at the same time, paying full duty to the extent of Rs. 40.65 lacs together with Rs. 13.69 lacs as VAT/CST. 10. In the face of this pending challenge however, a Policy Circular No. 74 (RE-08)/2004-2009, dated 26-3-2009 issued by the jurisdictional Export Commissioner restricting the clearances of deemed exports with respect to the item "marble" only. Being beset with this prejudicial administrative intervention, the petitioner, in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10877/2009, assailed the validity of this circular seeking redress. 10. In the face of this pending challenge however, a Policy Circular No. 74 (RE-08)/2004-2009, dated 26-3-2009 issued by the jurisdictional Export Commissioner restricting the clearances of deemed exports with respect to the item "marble" only. Being beset with this prejudicial administrative intervention, the petitioner, in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10877/2009, assailed the validity of this circular seeking redress. By order dated 9-12-2009, this Court as an interim relief stayed the operation of the policy circular dated 26-3-2009 and permitted the petitioner to supply marble against foreign exchange remittances in the DTA on payment of leviable duty, subject however, to the condition that if ultimately, it was held liable to any other consequences, it would give an undertaking to suffer the same. The petitioner has claimed that in view of the supplies so permitted to be made and effected, it earned foreign exchange to the tune of Rs. 4498.39 lacs in USD, and thus, made contribution to the foreign exchange reserves and in addition also made payment of full duty to the extent of Rs. 562.23 lacs and Rs. 250.76 lacs as VAT/CST. The notification dated 7-5-2012 impugned in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5459/2012 prohibiting thereby, supplies of marble in DTA under Paragraph 6.9(b) of FTP 2009-2014 came to be issued in this backdrop. 11. According to the petitioner, the adjudication in M/s. Hindustan Granites (supra) is limited to the issue of sales effected in DTA by EOUs under Paragraph 6.8 of the FTP 2004-2009 and has no bearing on the incidence of supplies made in DTA against foreign exchange remittances under Paragraph 6.9(b) of the FTP 2009-2014. 12. The petitioner, in substance, has contended that the entire thrust and objective of the FTPs and the provisions contained therein being to boost foreign exchange earnings, in furtherance whereof, Paragraph 6.9 had been incorporated in FTP 2004-2009 and FTP 2009-2014 permitting supplies in DTA against full duty and foreign exchange remittances, the restraint on such supplies only with respect to the item "marble" by 100% EOUs, was not only antithetical thereto on the face of it but also arbitrary, unjust and discriminatory as well. That meanwhile, the petitioner had entered into a contract with one of its buyers, namely, Tai Sheng Stones HK Co. That meanwhile, the petitioner had entered into a contract with one of its buyers, namely, Tai Sheng Stones HK Co. Ltd., for supply of marble slabs to the extent of 1,00,000 square metres and dressed marble blocks to the extent of 5000 MT, and that, a part of such supplies had already been effected, leaving the rest to be accomplished, has been stated. It is stated as well that to fulfil its obligations under the contract, it has already undertaken credit facility from the Bank of Baroda to the extent of Rs. 827 lacs. Referring to such contract, it has been pleaded that it would be apparent therefrom that it is required to make such supplies in different countries, including India on behalf of its buyer by physical exports, which amount to deemed exports in terms of Paragraph 6.9(b) of FTP 2009-2014. That in the meantime, the petitioner has placed orders to different suppliers for procurement of raw material to execute the aforementioned contract, has been underlined too. According to the petitioner, it has procured rough marble blocks from the foreign market and has prepared the finished goods, out of which, a part only has been supplied in the DTA under Paragraph 6.9(b) of the FTP 2009-2014 and the restraint has not only scuttled the transaction, but has also resulted in blockage of huge working capital causing immense financial loss and prejudice, apart from undermining its hard earned business goodwill and reputation. 13. The respondents, in their reply, while referring to the Central Government's power to amend the foreign trade policy in public interest, has asserted that in terms of Paragraph 6.1 of FTP 2009-2014, the EOUs are under an obligation to export their entire production of goods and services, except the permissible sales in DTA. According to the answering respondents, Paragraphs 6.3(a) & 6.8(h) of the FTP 2009-2014 deal with sale of goods at concessional rate of duty and at full payment of duty respectively, but do not permit DTA sale of marble. According to the answering respondents, Paragraphs 6.3(a) & 6.8(h) of the FTP 2009-2014 deal with sale of goods at concessional rate of duty and at full payment of duty respectively, but do not permit DTA sale of marble. Reiterating that the prohibition of DTA sale of marble has since been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Hindustan Granites (supra), they have pleaded that the interim orders passed by this Court permitting the petitioner to undertake DTA sales against foreign exchange remittances, are apparently conditional and do not vest it with any right in law to engage in such transactions in supersession of the relevant provisions of the FTP as well as the authority and right of the Central Government conferred by the Act to restrict and/or prohibit such sales in public interest. vis-a-vis the circular dated 26-3-2009, as assailed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10877/2009, the respondents have averred that the same had been issued with the approval of the Director General of Foreign Trade, Government of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry (respondent No. 2 in CWP No. 5459/2012), which in terms of Paragraph 2.3(a), renders the decision of this authority to be final and binding on all matters relating to the interpretation of the policy. The respondents have clarified that even prior to the issuance of the notification dated 7-5-2012, the sale of marble was not permitted under Paragraph 6.9(b). However, perceiving that the sale of imported marble by 100% EOU to DTA was a sensitive issue from the point of view of the protection of domestic industry and also being aware that some firms had obtained orders from courts permitting DTA sale of marble under Paragraph 6.9(b) of FTB, it did consciously decide to take this step of specifically stipulating the embargo, being also cognizant of the allegations of illegal sale of imported marble to DTA. They have alleged that though 100% EOUs import rough marble blocks, from which they produce marble tiles/slabs and are required to export the same, it had been noticed in course of the last seven years that the entire export of marble tiles/slabs is made out of poor quality indigenous rough marble blocks, necessitating the prohibition occasioned by the impugned circular/notifications. They have alleged that though 100% EOUs import rough marble blocks, from which they produce marble tiles/slabs and are required to export the same, it had been noticed in course of the last seven years that the entire export of marble tiles/slabs is made out of poor quality indigenous rough marble blocks, necessitating the prohibition occasioned by the impugned circular/notifications. Underlining that marble is a restricted item and amongst others the mining industry is also dependent thereon, the respondents have clarified that earning of foreign exchange is not the sole purpose of the FTP and the Government is obliged to keep in view different aspects such as, development of domestic industry, economic growth, generation of employment in the country etc. as relevant factors to shape and revamp the same. According to them, import of marble is controlled and annual quota thereof is released to various DTA firms for domestic consumption, keeping in view various relevant considerations. Though admitting that the EOUs are permitted to import marble under Paragraph 6.2(b) of the FTP, the respondents have emphatically asserted that they cannot use this provision for domestic sale thereof, which is not permissible. According to the respondents, the notification dated 7-5-2012, in essence, has incorporated clarifications in this regard in Paragraph 6.9 of the FTP. They have thus pleaded that the amendment in the Policy being within the competence of the Central Government under the Act and actuated by relevant determinants, the challenge is misplaced. 14. In its rejoinder, the petitioner while reiterating and reaffirming its averments, as outlined herein above, has denied the allegation of illegal sale of imported marble into DTA. While asserting that it is not at all involved in such illegal sale of imported marble, it has emphasised that on one hand, the Central Government had been increasing the quota of import of marble on regular basis to benefit a selected class of firms and on the other, had been imposing restrictions upon supplies of marble into DTA. According to it, classifying marble to be a restricted item is without any conceivable basis, and that, the restriction on the supply thereof into DTA, is also prompted by oblique considerations. It pleaded that it is involved in supplies of marble in domestic market at the instance of its foreign buyer, and that, no element of sale by it into DTA, in any manner, is involved. It pleaded that it is involved in supplies of marble in domestic market at the instance of its foreign buyer, and that, no element of sale by it into DTA, in any manner, is involved. As such supplies are being effected for its foreign buyer who, as a matter of fact, is selling marble to its customers in India. Such transactions do not amount to sale in DTA. That the impugned decisions are mutilative of the underlying objective of the FTP to boost foreign trade and consolidate foreign exchange reserves, has been emphasized. 15. In the aforenarrated pleaded setting, Mr. Singhvi has emphatically argued that having regard to the underlying objectives of the Act and the foreign trade policy formulated in exercise of the power thereunder, the impugned circulars/notifications being clearly opposed thereto in letter and spirit, are liable to be adjudged illegal and null and void. Referring to the obligations of an EOU to achieve net foreign exchange earnings, in excess of foreign exchange utilised for importing raw material and capital goods, as enshrined in the FTP, the learned senior counsel has insisted that as the supplies under Paragraph 6.9 of FTP 2009-2014 into DTA are required to be counted towards fulfilment of positive Net Foreign Exchange Earning (also referred to as 'NFE'), the restriction and/or prohibition imposed thereon, is patently unwarranted and unintended by the FTP. As the FTP formulated under the Act is of statutory character, the impugned circular/notifications being repugnant to a Parliament made law, and are thus, void ab initio he maintained. Contending that the sale contemplated under Paragraph 6.8(a) & (h) of the FTP are distinctly different from the supplies under Paragraph 6.9(b), in particular, Mr. Singhvi has dismissed the plea of the respondents that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Hindustan Granites (supra). Contending that the sale contemplated under Paragraph 6.8(a) & (h) of the FTP are distinctly different from the supplies under Paragraph 6.9(b), in particular, Mr. Singhvi has dismissed the plea of the respondents that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Hindustan Granites (supra). Highlighting the distinguishable features of a sale under Paragraph 6.8(a) & (h) and supplies under Paragraph 6.9(b), in particular and referring to Paragraphs 8.1 & 8.2 of the FTP and Circular No. 29/2003, dated 3-4-2003 issued by the Board of Customs, learned senior counsel has asserted that as such supplies amount to deemed exports and are counted towards fulfilment of NFE, the prohibition thereon, as sought to be imposed by the impugned circulars/notifications are anathema to the Act and FTP framed in exercise of the power thereunder and are, thus, ex facie non est in law. According to Mr. Singhvi, the supplies in DTA under Paragraph 6.9(b) of the FTP against foreign exchange remittances are in consonance with the basic purpose thereof (FTP), and consolidate and enhance foreign exchange earnings. The irrational and unwarranted change in the Government policy imposing arbitrary restriction on the trade of marble by EOUs is destructive of foreign trade prospects, and thus, being against national interest, is liable to be declared illegal and null and void, he argued. The learned senior counsel has insisted that the impugned action is partisan and discriminatory as well, inasmuch as, while on one hand, the Central Government had been enhancing the quota of import of rough marble blocks from time to time, on the other, it is throttling supplies of finished goods in DTA against foreign exchange remittances received from overseas. Dismissing the respondents' plea of illegal sale of sub-standard finished marble products in DTA by the EOUs as wholly baseless, Mr. Singhvi has insisted that there being no valid justification for issuance of the impugned circular(s) and/or notification(s), the same ought to be held void ab initio. According to the learned senior counsel, the respondents' purported justification of protecting the domestic industry is also frivolous, in the teeth of continual increase of the quota of import of rough marble blocks. Singhvi has insisted that there being no valid justification for issuance of the impugned circular(s) and/or notification(s), the same ought to be held void ab initio. According to the learned senior counsel, the respondents' purported justification of protecting the domestic industry is also frivolous, in the teeth of continual increase of the quota of import of rough marble blocks. As such marked enhancement of import quota not only demonstrates an inexplicable indulgence to the concerned importers to exercise monopoly and exploit the consumers, the impugned circular/notifications had curtailed inflow of foreign exchange and encourage outflow thereof to the detriment of the national coffers. In absence of any cogent and convincing quantifiable data to substantiate the plea of the respondents that the supplies of marble by EOUs in DTA under Paragraph 6.9(b) are causing adverse impact on the domestic industry, the impugned circular/notifications, even otherwise, are not sustainable in law and on facts, he urged. Not only is the impugned action of the respondents arbitrary and unreasonable, and thus, violative of the petitioners fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, the same ex facie encourage the foreign exchange outgoings at the cost of receipts, an eventuality unintended by the enactment and the Policy framed thereunder, he maintained. 16. To buttress his contentions, Mr. Singhvi placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the Labour Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh v. Burhanpur Tapti Mills Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1687 ; Rohtas Industries v. S.D. Agarwal & Ors., (1969) 1 SCC 325 ; Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 248 ; Secretary to Govt., Tamil Nadu & Anr. v. K. Vinayagamurthy, AIR 2002 SC 2968 , and Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation & Anr. v. Ashok Iron Works Private Limited, (2009) 3 SCC 240 . 17. In refutation, Mr. Mathur has urged that the issue a raised in the instant proceedings being squarely covered by the determination made in M/s. Hindustan Granites (supra), the challenge laid ought to be negated in limine. Contending that the sales contemplated in Paragraphs 6.8(a) & (h) of the FTP 2009-2014 include supplies referred to in Paragraph 6.9, in the face of the enunciation in M/s. Hindustan Granites (supra), he argued that the plea to the contrary is wholly misconceived and the impugned circulars/notifications are valid. Contending that the sales contemplated in Paragraphs 6.8(a) & (h) of the FTP 2009-2014 include supplies referred to in Paragraph 6.9, in the face of the enunciation in M/s. Hindustan Granites (supra), he argued that the plea to the contrary is wholly misconceived and the impugned circulars/notifications are valid. According to the learned counsel, having regard to the role of an EOU as cut out in the FTP, permissibility of sale/supply by it into DTA is by way of an exception, and thus, it being within the competence of the Central Government to introduce amendments in the policy, having regard to the situational exigencies justifying the same, the impugned action, by no means, can be faulted with. Reiterating that Paragraph 6.9 is only by way of a clarification of Paragraph 6.8, and that, these two provisions, in essence, complement to each other, Mr. Mathur has asserted that the restriction on the sale and supplies, amongst others, of marble by an EOU into DTA being an essentiality in the interest of domestic industry the impugned circulars/notifications are unassailable. 18. Mr. Mathur maintained that the restriction on the sale and supplies, amongst others, of marble by EOUs into DTA was warranted, having regard to the clandestine activities resulting in export of sub-standard finished products made of indigenous rough marble blocks against import of rough counterparts on one hand, and release of rich quality goods made out of imported rough marble blocks in the DTA on the other. Moreover, marble being a restricted item, the Central Government was well within its authority, having regard to the various factors e.g. development of domestic industry, economic growth and generation of employment in the country, in particular, to justifiably resort to the decision impugned, he urged. As the impugned action is in furtherance of a policy decision in public interest, this Court, even otherwise in exercise of its power of judicial review, ought to be loathe to interfere therewith, he asserted. 19. Following decisions have been relied upon:- 1. M/s. Hindustan Granites v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2007 SC (Supp.) 299 . 2. Union of India & Ors. v. Dinesh Engineering Corporation & Anr., AIR 2001 SC 3887 . 3. R.K. Garg v. Union of India & Ors., (1981) 4 SCC 675 . 4. Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Malyam v. Union of India (UOI) & Ors., (2009) 7 SCC 561 . 5. 2. Union of India & Ors. v. Dinesh Engineering Corporation & Anr., AIR 2001 SC 3887 . 3. R.K. Garg v. Union of India & Ors., (1981) 4 SCC 675 . 4. Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Malyam v. Union of India (UOI) & Ors., (2009) 7 SCC 561 . 5. Re : Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1 . 6. Secretary of Agriculture v. Central Reig Refining Co., 338 US 604 (1950) . 7. Premium Granites & Anr. v. State of T.N. & Ors., (1994) 2 SCC 691 . 8. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Limited & Anr. v. Reserve Bank of India, (1992) 2 SCC 343 . 9. M/s. Prag Ice and Oil Mills & Anr. v. Union of India, (1978) 3 SCC 459 . 10. Morey v. Doud, 354 US 457 . 20. The rival pleadings and the arguments based thereon have received our due consideration. 21. The dissensus, as the above narration would project, centres around the import of Paragraph 6.9 thereof. There is no wrangle at the Bar that the notification dated 31-8-2005 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce under Section 5 of the Act read with Paragraph 1.3 of the FTP 2004-2009, excluding DTA sales, amongst others, of marble hitherto permissible under Paragraphs 6.8(a) & 6.8(h), has since been held to be valid by the Hon'ble Apex Court by its rendering in M/s. Hindustan Granites (supra). 22. Whereas the petitioner has endeavoured to maintain the present assailment by dissociating "sales" under Paragraph 6.8 from "supplies" under Paragraph 6.9 contending that this decision has no bearing, the respondents have asseverated to the contrary. 23. Be that as it may, before adverting to this facet of the debate, it would be apt to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and the FTP 2009-2014 to facilitate judicial analysis of the contrasting pleas. 24. The Act, as its Preamble reveals, is a legislation to provide for the development and regulation of foreign trade by facilitating imports into, and augmenting exports from, India and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 24. The Act, as its Preamble reveals, is a legislation to provide for the development and regulation of foreign trade by facilitating imports into, and augmenting exports from, India and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Statement of Objects and Reasons, while underlining that foreign trade is the driving force of economic activity and co-apts technology, investment and production in promoting the same, acknowledged goals of the new trade policy to increase productivity and competitiveness and to achieve a strong export performance. The existing Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 was recommended to be replaced by the intended legislation with the notion that the basic law governing foreign trade must serve as an instrument to create an environment that would provide a strong impetus to exports, facilitate imports and render export activity more profitable. That the Exports and Import Policy is a vital part of trade policy, was highlighted as well. 25. For the purpose in hand, enough it would be to refer to Sections 3 & 5 of the Act. Whereas Section 3 empowers the Central Government to make provision for the development and regulation of foreign trade by facilitating imports and increasing exports the liberty to make provision for prohibition, restriction or regulation in all cases or in specified classes of cases, and subject to such exceptions, as may be made by or under the Order published in the Official Gazette, vide Section 5, it is authorised to formulate and announce, by notification in the Official Gazette, the foreign trade policy, and also to amend the same. These provisions therefore, unmistakably testify the presiding power of the Central Government to make provision for the development and regulation of foreign trade by facilitating imports and increasing exports, and also to formulate and announce the foreign trade policy and to amend the same from time to time. This legislatively conferred empowerment of the Central Government thus, admit of no reservation, subject to valid exercise of the power, comprehended on relevant considerations. 26. The FTP 2009-2014 designed on the intended achievements of the Act, in the foreword thereto, synopsized its intendments. Following excerpts thereof would be relevant:- "The short term objective of our policy is to arrest and reverse the declining trend of exports and to provide additional support especially to those sectors which have been hit badly by recession in the developed world. Following excerpts thereof would be relevant:- "The short term objective of our policy is to arrest and reverse the declining trend of exports and to provide additional support especially to those sectors which have been hit badly by recession in the developed world. We would like to set a policy objective of achieving an annual export growth of 15% with an annual export target of US$ 200 billion by March, 2011. In the remaining three years of this Foreign Trade Policy i.e. upto 2014, the country should be able to come back on the high export growth path of around 25% per annum. By 2014, we expect to double India's exports of goods and services. The long term policy objective for the Government is to double India's share in global trade by 2020. ...... ...... ..... In order to meet these objectives, the Government would follow a mix of policy measures including fiscal incentives, institutional changes, procedural rationalization, enhanced market access across the world and diversification of export markets. Improvement in infrastructure related to exports; bringing down transaction costs, and providing full refund of all indirect taxes and levies, would be the three pillars, which will support us to achieve this target. Endeavour will be made to see that the Goods and Services Tax rebates all indirect taxes und levies on exports. ...... ...... ..... We need to encourage value addition in our manufactured exports and towards this end, have stipulated a minimum 15% value addition on imported inputs under advance authorisation scheme." 27. Few provisions thereof, being indispensable, are also referred to herein below:- "1.3 Central Government reserves right in public interest to make any amendments by notification to this Policy in exercise of powers conferred by Section 5 of FT(D&R) Act. 2.1 Exports and Imports shall be free, except where regulated by FTP or any other law in force. The item wise export and import policy shall be, as specified in ITC(HS) notified by DGFT, as amended from time to time. ...... ...... ...... 2.3 If any question or doubt arises in respect of interpretation of any provision contained in FTP, or classification of any item in ITC (HS) or HBP-v1 or HBP-v2, or Schedule of DEPB Rates (including content, scope or issue of an authorisation there under) said question or doubt shall be referred to DGFT whose decision thereon shall be final and binding. 6.1 Units undertaking to export their entire production of goods and services (except permissible sales in DTA), may be set up under the Export Oriented Unit (EOU) Scheme, Electronics Hardware 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 unit are not covered under these schemes. 6.2 (a) ..... ...... (b) An EOU/EHTP/STP/BTP unit may import and/or procure, from DTA or bonded warehouses in DTA/international exhibition held in India, without payment of duty, all types of goods, including capital goods, required for its activities, provided they are not prohibited items of import in the ITC (HS). Any permission required for import under any other law shall be applicable. Units shall also be permitted to import goods including capital goods required for approved activity, free of cost or on loan/lease from clients. Import of capital goods will be on a self certification basis. Goods imported by a unit shall be with actual user condition and shall be utilised for export production. 6.8 Entire production of EOU/EHTP/STP/BTP units shall be exported subject to following : (a) Units, other than gems and jewellery units, may sell goods upto 50% of FOB value of exports, subject to fulfilment of positive NFE, on payment of concessional, duties. ..... ... No DTA sale at concessional duty shall be permissible in respect of motor cars, alcoholic liquors, books, tea (except instant tea), pepper & pepper products, marble and such other items as may be notified from time to time. ... ...... .............. (b) ...... ..... (c) ...... ..... (d) ...... ..... (e) ...... ..... (f) ...... ..... (g) ...... ..... (h) EOU/EHTP/STP/BTP units may sell finished products, except pepper and pepper products and marble, which are freely importable under FTP in DTA, under intimation to DC, against payment of full duties, provided they have achieved positive NFE. An amount equal to Anti Dumping duty under section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 leviable at the time of import, shall be payable on the goods used for the purpose of manufacture or processing of the goods cleared into DTA from the unit. 6.9 Following supplies effected from EOU/EHTP/STP/BTP units to DTA will be counted for fulfilment of positive NFE : (a) ...... ..... (b) Supplies effected in DTA against foreign exchange remittance received from overseas. 6.9 Following supplies effected from EOU/EHTP/STP/BTP units to DTA will be counted for fulfilment of positive NFE : (a) ...... ..... (b) Supplies effected in DTA against foreign exchange remittance received from overseas. 8.2 "Deemed Exports" refer to those transactions in which goods supplied do not leave country, and payment for such supplies is received either in Indian rupees or in free foreign exchange. 8.2 Following categories of supply of goods by main/sub contractors shall be regarded as "Deemed Exports" under FTP, provided goods are manufactured in India : (a) Supply of goods against Advance Authorization/Advance Authorization for annual requirement/DFIA; 9.9.1 "Authorization" means a permission as included in Section 2(g) of FT(D&R) Act to import or export as per provisions of FTP." 28. A plain perusal of the above quoted provisions of the FTP 2009-2014 (also referred to as 'the Policy') would attest that as ordained by the Act, the Central Government in public interest, may effect any amendment to the Policy. Further, the exports and imports, which otherwise are to be free, can be regulated by the Policy or any other law in force. The primacy of the FTP on these transactions is therefore, patently clear. Paragraph 2.3 acknowledges the Director General of Foreign Trade to be the ultimate authority in the matter of interpretation of any provision of the Policy. Chapter-6, which deals, amongst others, with EOUs, Electronic Hardware Technology Parks (EHTPs), Software Technology Parks (STPs) and Bio-Technology Parks (BTPs), stipulates that the units intended to export their entire production of goods and services (except permissible sates in DTA) may be set up under the EOU Scheme for manufacture of goods, including repair, re-making, reconditioning, re-engineering and rendering of services. In the glossary of the terms applied in the Policy, EPZ/EOU has been defined. EPZ denotes Export Processing Zones which have to be the enclaves separate from the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) to provide an internationally competitive duty free environment for export production. The EOUs are export oriented units. The EOU Scheme is complementary to EPZ Scheme, except that it is widely disbursed in locations, unlike EPZs which are set up at specific locations. 29. The EOUs are export oriented units. The EOU Scheme is complementary to EPZ Scheme, except that it is widely disbursed in locations, unlike EPZs which are set up at specific locations. 29. In terms of Paragraph 6.2(b), an EOU unit may import and/or procure, from DTA or bonded warehouses in DTA/international exhibition held in India, without payment of duty, all types of goods, including capital goods, required for its activities, provided, they are not prohibited in the ITC(HS) (Indian Trade Classification (Harmonized System). The goods so imported by such unit have to be with actual user condition and are to be utilised for export production. As per Paragraph 6.5, an EOU unit shall be a positive net foreign exchange earner, except for sector specific provision of Appendix 14-I-C of HBP v1, where a higher value addition shall be required. The NFE earnings are to be calculated cumulatively in blocks of five years, starting from commencement of production. Paragraph 6.8 predicates that entire production of EOU units shall be exported, subject to the exigencies, as mentioned therein. 30. In terms of Paragraph 6.8(a), units, other than gems and jewellery units, may sell goods upto 50% of FOB value of exports, subject to fulfilment of positive NFE, on payment of concessional duties. Vide the notification dated 31-8-2005, referred to herein above, occasioning the amendment in Paragraph 6.8(a), DTA sale at concessional duty, inter alia of marble, was made impermissible. The validity of this notification, to reiterate, has since been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Hindustan Granites (supra). 31. As per Paragraph 6.8(h), an EOU may sell finished products, except pepper and pepper products and marble, which are freely importable under FTP in DTA, under intimation to the jurisdictional Development Commissioner, against payment of full duties, provided it has achieved positive NFE. Paragraph 6.9 provides that the supplies, as catalogued in clauses (a) to (h) thereunder, effected amongst others by EOU units to DTA would be counted for fulfilment of positive NFE. Clause (b) thereof comprehends supplies effected in DTA against foreign exchange remittances received from overseas. "Deemed Exports" has been denied in Paragraph 8.1 to refer to those transactions, in which goods supplied do not leave country, and payment for such supplies is received either in Indian rupees or in free foreign exchange. 32. Clause (b) thereof comprehends supplies effected in DTA against foreign exchange remittances received from overseas. "Deemed Exports" has been denied in Paragraph 8.1 to refer to those transactions, in which goods supplied do not leave country, and payment for such supplies is received either in Indian rupees or in free foreign exchange. 32. On a cumulative consideration of these provisions, it is thus, apparent that in terms of the EOU Scheme, the entire production of an EOU unit has to be obligatorily exported, except in the eventualities, as enumerated in clauses set out under Paragraphs 6.8 & 6.9, and subject as well, to the conditions regulating the same. Visibly, whereas Paragraph 6.8 comprehends DTA sale of finished products/rejects/waste/scrap/remnants and by-products by, amongst others, an EOU, Paragraph 6.9 relates to other supplies in DTA to be counted for fulfilment of positive NFE. Such supplies, to be permissible, are similarly subject to the covenants detailed in the respective sub-clause(s). 33. It would be expedient at this juncture to refer to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Hindustan Granites (supra), wherein the validity of the circular dated 30-8-2005 and the notification dated 31-8-2005 amending Paragraphs 6.8(a) & (h) of the FTP 2004-2009, was under scrutiny. As the text of the judgment would reveal, it was confined to Domestic Tariff Area sales by 100% Export Oriented Units. The query framed by their Lordships was whether DTA sales by 100% EOUs form an integral part of the EOU Scheme. 34. Tracing the concept of EOU introduced in the year 1980 in the Export Import Policy (hereafter also referred to as 'EXIM') with the goal of boosting Indian exports, the contingencies in which such units were permissible to sell their goods/rejects etc., were noted. Having regard to the requirements of the present adjudication, it is construed to be inessential to refer to the factual details. By way of recollection, by the notification dated 31-8-2005, the EOUs were prevented from making DTA sales of finished marble from imported rough marble with immediate effect. Amongst other contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, arbitrary increase in the quota of import qua Special Import License Units (for short, also referred to as 'SIL Units'), was mooted to urge discrimination and undue favour to them vis-a-vis the EOUs thus, resulting in loss to the latter. Amongst other contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, arbitrary increase in the quota of import qua Special Import License Units (for short, also referred to as 'SIL Units'), was mooted to urge discrimination and undue favour to them vis-a-vis the EOUs thus, resulting in loss to the latter. It was pleaded as well that the impugned notification was against public interest as the SIL Units had no export obligations and, thus, were not foreign exchange earners and were required to pay lesser rate of duty as well. That DTA sales were permitted only if the EOU had fulfilled its export obligations and had achieved positive NFE and the same had no correlation with the imported raw material, out of which, the exports were made, was highlighted. It was asserted that the impugned circular/notification was with a view to protect the SIL Units at the cost of 100% EOUs. 35. Their Lordships, on a survey of the Policy involved and on a scrutiny of the materials on record, negated these contentions for the reasons as hereunder:- (a) 100% EOUs had undertaken to export their entire production except permissible sale in DTA, and thus, DTA sales constituted an exception or an incidental facility, and thus, were not an integral part of the EOU Scheme. (b) 100% EOUs have been importing rough marble blocks from which they had been producing marble tiles/slabs, but the director General of Foreign Trade had found that in course of last seven years, the entire export of marble tiles/slabs is made out of poor quality indigenous rough marble blocks thus, warranting disallowance of DTA sales by 100% EOUs vide the impugned circular/notification. (c) Marble 'is a restricted item, and it had been detected by the Director General of Foreign Trade that 4% to 5%, 100% EOUs have been importing rough marble ostensibly for export, but in effect, after slight polishing the same are being sold in DTA in circumvention of the Restricted Import Policy of marble during 100% EOU Scheme. The rationale 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 rationale 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, and if that facility leads to substitution of imported inputs by domestically procured inputs, then the facility has to be discontinued, as done by the impugned circular/notification. (d) Marble has been included in the restricted category as it is not treated as only a revenue generating resource, as the mining industry depends thereon. Mining generate employment and the mining industry thus, is dependent on marble as an essential input. As a consequence of the substitution of imported inputs by domestically procured inputs, the Indian market gets flooded by imported goods, resulting in unemployment in the mining industry. (e) By the impugned circular/notification, procurement of domestic rough marble blocks for achieving NFE earrings has been stopped, which is essentially the purpose of prohibiting the DTA sales. By the amendment to the Policy, 100% EOUs are required to produce marble tiles/slabs (finished products) out of imported rough marble blocks thus, impeding procurement of domestic rough marble blocks for achieving NFE by these units. (f) There are only 4% to 5% 100% EOUs compared to 20 to 25 eligible SIL Units, and thus, the import quota has been increased from 68,000 MT to 1.30 lakhs MT. 36. That this decision, with the above findings embodied therein, has attained finality, is an undeniable fact. Veracity of the facts, as recorded therein and correctness of the analysis thereof on the anvil of the Policy and the role of the Export Oriented Units under the EOU Scheme leading to the ultimate conclusions, also unassailably cannot be questioned and/or re-examined. This applies, more particularly, with regard to the disclosure by the Director General of Foreign Trade that noticeably, the entire export of marble tiles/slabs was being made out of poor quality indigenous rough marble blocks and the entire sale of marble tiles/slabs in the DTA is from rich good quality imported rough marble blocks. That marble is a restricted item, is not in dispute. That marble is a restricted item, is not in dispute. As the above quoted reasons in the decision in M/s. Hindustan Granites (supra) would reveal, their Lordships sustained the validity of the impugned circular/notification by laying due emphasis on the rationale behind allowing imports of rough marble blocks by 100% EOUs to be used for export production, and not for diversion to the DTA, resulting in the Indian market being flooded by imported goods eventuating unemployment in the mining industry. That by the impugned circular/notification, procurement of domestic rough marble blocks for achieving NFE earnings by DTA sales has been sought to be regulated, had been specifically noted. The demur qua consistent enhancement in the import quota to benefit the SIL Units, has been rejected as well. 37. In its bid to demonstrate the inapplicability of the raison d'etre of M/s. Hindustan Granites (supra) qua the present assailment, the distinguishing features between the DTA sales and supplies under Paragraphs 6.8 and 6.9 have been sought to be highlighted on behalf of the petitioner. Apart from the difference in the rates of duty therefor under Paragraphs 6.8(a) and (h) and Paragraph 6.9 and the disclosure requirements in the excise returns for these transactions, it has been, in categorical terms, underlined that the earnings are in Indian currency for sales and in foreign currency vis-a-vis supplies. It has been highlighted as well that the sales do not account for the purpose of NFE, but the supplies do. That the particulars of sales and supplies are to be furnished separately in the quarterly and annual returns comprehended under the relevant FTP, has been asserted. It has been underlined as well that the supplies under Paragraph 6.9 are deemed exports and accountable for fulfilment of positive NFE, a primary obligation of an Export Oriented Unit under the EOU Scheme. 38. As against the petitioner's insistence that the impugned decision is incompatible with the underlying objective of the Act and the Policy framed thereunder, namely, to boost foreign trade and consolidate and enhance foreign exchange earnings, the respondents with specific reference to marble as a restricted item, have pleaded that foreign exchange cannot be the sole criterion for a foreign trade policy of any country, and that, various aspects, namely, development of domestic industry, economic growth, generation of employment etc. are relevant determinants to design and implement the same. are relevant determinants to design and implement the same. At the cost of repetition, the factum of clandestine sales of marble tiles/slabs in DTA made from rich good quality imported rough marble blocks and export of marble tiles/slabs produced out of poor quality indigenous rough marble blocks, had been adverted to. While mentioning that the EOUs are permitted to import marble under Paragraph 6.2(b) of the FTP, the respondents have asserted that they cannot use the imported marble for domestic sale, as has been judicial countenanced in M/s. Hindustan Granites (supra). 39. Though it has been persistently contended that in absence of any overwhelming proof or quantifiable data/inputs testifying the imputation of clandestine sales by EOUs into DTA of finished marble products out of high quality imported rough marble blocks and export by them of poor quality indigenous rough marble blocks, such an imputation ought not to be taken cognizance of, we are not inclined to lend our concurrence to this assertion, more particularly, in view of the graphic and conclusive contextual text in this regard, as contained in M/s. Hindustan Granites (supra). The factors and/or considerations cited by the respondents in addition to foreign exchange earnings, as contributing criteria, to formulate a foreign trade policy also, in our comprehension, cannot be readily discarded as impertinent or vacuous. There is no determinative material on record that the factors, such as, development of domestic industry, economic growth and generation of employment in the country, as highlighted by the respondents, have not either been taken note of or applied to prohibit supplies of DTA under Paragraph 6.9 of 'marble'. Though literally, Paragraphs 6.8 & 6.9 refer to sales and supplies respectively, notwithstanding possible variations in the incidental attributes of the transactions involved, these, to our understanding, have in common an element of sale, as fundamentally conceptualized. It is unlikely, and that too, in absence of any overwhelming material to the contrary that though supplies under Paragraph 6.9 are construed to be deemed exports facilitating fulfilment of positive NFE, more particularly, vis-a-vis sub-clause (b) thereof, that the respondents had been wholly oblivious of the subtle differences between the two transactions, in taking the impugned decision. It is unlikely, and that too, in absence of any overwhelming material to the contrary that though supplies under Paragraph 6.9 are construed to be deemed exports facilitating fulfilment of positive NFE, more particularly, vis-a-vis sub-clause (b) thereof, that the respondents had been wholly oblivious of the subtle differences between the two transactions, in taking the impugned decision. We have examined, while dealing with this aspect of deemed exports, not only the relevant provision of the FTP 2009-2014, but also the Circular No. 29/2003, dated 3-4-2003 of the Board of Customs providing for full duties payable therefor in respect of certain categories by EOU/STP/EHTP and SEZ as well as the invoices appended to the writ petition revealing the particulars of the supplies effected by the petitioner, and are left with the persuasive view that the same (supplies) have a demonstrable element of sale, thus bringing the said transactions within the ambit of the considerations, on which the circular/notifications involved in M/s. Hindustan Granites (supra), has been held to be valid. 40. In Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation & Anr., while dealing with the issue as to whether supply of electrical energy by the Electricity Board to its consumer is a sale and purchase within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it was held negative. This proposition, in our comprehension, was not intended to be generalised to denote that supplies under any circumstance, irrespective of the nature of the transaction involving the same and the law governing them, would never constitute a sale. Whether a supply of any goods/commodity would tantamount to sale, would assuredly be dependent on the nature of the transaction and the terms and conditions governing the same. The words "supply" and "sale" thus, would derive their import and colour from the text in which these are used, and are to be perceived in the backdrop of the transaction encompassing the two incidents as well as the law regulating the same. 41. Irrefutably, having regard to the role, commitment and obligation of an EOU under the Policy to export its entire production of goods, the permissible DTA sales of finished products etc. and other supplies in the DTA, as contemplated in Paragraphs 6.8 and 6.9, are exceptions in the contingencies carved out therefor. 41. Irrefutably, having regard to the role, commitment and obligation of an EOU under the Policy to export its entire production of goods, the permissible DTA sales of finished products etc. and other supplies in the DTA, as contemplated in Paragraphs 6.8 and 6.9, are exceptions in the contingencies carved out therefor. Logically therefore, and as ratified by Paragraphs 1.3 and 2.1 of the FTP, exports and imports envisaged thereunder, can assuredly be regulated by the provisions thereof or any other law in force, and the Central Government is authorised, in public interest, to make any amendment to the Policy in the exercise of its power under Section 5 of the Act. Thus, if the supplies in DTA, as conceived of in Paragraph 6.9 with all its attendant concomitants, including NFE earning potential thus, can indubitably be regulated/restricted by the Central Government on relevant considerations and in public interest, and in such an eventuality, the plea of violation of the fundamental right to carry on any trade, occupation or business under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, would not be tenable. Having regard to the avowed objectives sought to be achieved by the impugned decision, reliance on the decision in Secretary to Govt., Tamil Nadu & Anr. (supra) is also of no avail. 42. The considerations prompting the impugned decision, in our view, outweighs the aspects highlighted on behalf of the petitioner to repudiate the same and cannot be dubbed to be antagonistic to the Act and the Policy framed thereunder. 43. Referring to the decision in Barium Chemicals & Anr. v. Company Law Board & Anr., (1966) Supp. SCR 311 , their Lordships recalled the observations made therein that the power under Section 237(b) was discretionary, yet the formation of the opinion being subjective, existence of the circumstance, was a sine qua non therefor and ought to be demonstrable. Substantially, in the same lines on this facet of judicial enunciation, is the rendering in Rohtas Industries (supra), in which, with reference to Section 237(b)(i) and (ii) of the Companies Act, 1956, it was held that before taking any action thereunder, the Central Government has to form an opinion that there are circumstances suggesting that the business of the company is being conducted with the intent to defraud its creditors, members or any other person, or otherwise for a fraudulent or unlawful purpose etc. In the contextual facts, their Lordships were of the view that the Government had not bestowed sufficient materials before it before doing so. 44. Whereas the above decisions do not admit of any debate, having regard to the sequence of events, the pleaded facts and the relevant text of the rendering in M/s. Hindustan Granites (supra) bearing on the considerations on which DTA sales of marble under Paragraph 6.8 had been prohibited, the above referred decisions qua the subjective satisfaction of the Central Government are, in our estimate, of no assistance to the petitioner. Further, relevant extracts from the relevant official records presented in course of the arguments, do demonstrate a series of deliberations on the pertinent aspects involved culminating in the impugned decision. The writ court, in the exercise of its power of judicial review, has to limit its scrutiny only to examine the relevance or otherwise of the materials, considerations or reasons acted upon by the executive to arrive at a decision, validity whereof, is impeached. Adequacy or sufficiency thereof is beyond the purview of such judicial audit. These authorities as well, in our understanding, do not advance the case of the petitioner. 45. In a plethora of decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court has, on umpteen occasions, entered a caveat against ready interference with a decision in a policy matter. Amongst others, inter alia in Union of India & Ors. v. Dinesh Engineering Corporation & Anr. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court declined to intervene on this analogy observing that policy decisions are based on expert knowledge of the persons concerned and courts are normally not equipped to question the correctness thereof. 46. In Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Malyam (supra), in reiteration it was observed that in the matter of policy decision and economic tests, the scope of judicial review is very limited. It was held that the court cannot examine the relative merits of different economic policies and strike down the same merely on the ground that another policy would have been fairer and better. It was underlined that it is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved, and that, wisdom and advisability of economic policy are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review. It was underlined that it is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved, and that, wisdom and advisability of economic policy are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review. Their Lordships observed as well that normally there is always a presumption that the Government action is reasonable and in public interest and it is for the party challenging its validity to show that it is wanting in reasonableness or is not informed with public interest. While emphasising that the burden has to be discharged to the satisfaction of the court by proper and adequate material, it was held that it ought not to be lightly assumed that the action taken by the Government is unreasonable or against public interest as there are large number of considerations, which necessarily weigh with it (Government) in taking an action, We do not wish to burden this judgment with further pronouncements consolidating this view. 47. The impugned decision, to reiterate, cannot be discarded to be wholly without any reason. In our comprehension, Marble being admittedly a restricted item, the impugned decision, when judged in the attendant factual scenario cannot be faulted with. This Court, having regard to the nature of the proceedings, does not construe it to be essential to delve further into the factual aspects to assay the wisdom of the respondents in resorting to the prohibitory initiative. 48. In the wake of the above determination, we do not find any merit in the challenge laid in the petitions, which are accordingly dismissed. The interim orders are vacated. 49. A copy of this order be placed in all files.Petitions dismissed. *******