Karan Export Private Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1271 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Rule.

With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.

2. By this writ petition, petitioner seeks directions to the respondents to allow the benefit of the quota certificate, which had been endorsed by respondent No. 2 that is Apparel Export Promotion Council in favor of petitioner. Learned counsel for

the petitioner contended that once the transfer entitlement certificate had been issued by respondent No. 2, the petitioner acquires right to export and respondent No. 2 could not have stopped the entitlement of petitioner to exports, especially when the petitioner had bonafide purchased the quota from M/s. Sak Kura Apparels.

Counsel for the petitioner also complains of the delay entailed in as much as the said respondents as well as the Textile Ministry did not respond to his repeated complaints.

3. Mr. Rawal, counsel for the respondent, has taken me through the provisions of the Garment export entitlement policy. Mr. Rawal submits that it is the Textile Commissioner who has the primary responsibility for verifying the eligibility for grant and transfer of quota. It is primary function and role of the Textile Commissioner to verify the allotment of quota and its transfers. Learned counsel submits that in the instant case the transferor M/s. Sak Kura Apparels was found to have deceitfully and fraudulently obtained the quota. It is stated that as a result of the subsequent inspections and verifications carried out by the Textile Commissioner it was revealed that

said unit was a non-functional unit and this quota appears to have been obtained by them on the basis of false declarations. He further submits that the petitioner as a transferee was bound by obliged to follow the terms of the policy. Ms. Jyoti Singh also submitted that the Textile Commissioner, who was the appropriate party and who has the record in his possession has not been made as a party.

4. In view of the foregoing discussion, it appears to the undersigned that once the quota certificate on the basis of which the petitioner claims his right to export itself originates in fraud, the petitioner would not acquire any right. Fraud would vitiate the entire transaction and it would be for the petitioner to seek his remedies independently against the said M/s. Sak Kura Apparels for the transfer of a quota which had been fraudulently obtained. No relief can be granted to the petitioner in writ petition.