M/S Bhole Baba Dairy Industries ... vs Union Of India And Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3129 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


%                    Judgment delivered on:         5th July, 2011


              C.M. No. 8010/2011 in WP(C) 3839/2011

M/S BHOLE BABA DAIRY INDUSTRIES LTD. ..... Petitioner
                  Through : Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv.
                            with Mr. J.S. Bakshi and Mr.
                            Amitesh Singh, Advs.

                     versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                             ..... Respondents

                  Through :             Mr. Nitish Gupta and
                                        Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal, CGSC

                                        Mr. Mukesh Anand and
                                        Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, Advs. for
                                        respondent No.3


CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

     1.   Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
          see the judgment ?                                  Yes
     2.   To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                    Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ? Yes

MANMOHAN SINGH, J

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under

Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India thereby amongst

others challenging the Notification No. 23 (RE-2010)/2009-2014

dated 18.02.2010(ANN-P-I), Notification No. 25 (RE-2010)/2009-

2014 dated 24.02.2011 (ANN-P-II), Notification No. 37 E (RE-

2010)/2009-2014 dated 24.03.2011 (ANN-P-III) and sought other

reliefs.

2. The matter was listed first time before the court on

31.05.2011 when notice was issued. On oral request the prayer to

implead the Custom Authority was allowed. The matter was

adjourned to 17.06.2011 before the Vacation Division Bench. When

the matter was listed on 17.06.2011, time was granted to file the reply

to the Custom Authority who is the main contesting party.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has

made a statement before us that at this stage the petitioner is only

pressing the following relief made in CM. No. 8010/2011 which is

listed for disposal:

To permit the petitioner to export 135 MT of casein

lying at ICD Tuglkabad, New Delhi and 70 MT of casein

lying in the godowns of the petitioner. Further the

petitioner be permitted to fulfill their total pending

export orders of 560 MT of Casein as enumerated in

ANN-P-XII.

4. Both the parties were heard in the interim application

and orders were reserved on 27.06.2010.

5. The brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the

present writ petition are that the petitioner is a manufacturer of dairy

products having factory at Agra-Aligarh By-pass Road, Khaireshwar

Dham (U.P.) which is duly registered with the Central Excise

Division-Aligarh (Lucknow Commissionrate) under Registration No.

AACCB2221MXM001.

6. The petitioner is eligible for opting clearance of goods

for export and examination thereof at the factory itself in terms of

CBEC‟s Circular No. 60/2001-Cus dated 01.11.2001, being a Central

Excise registered manufacturer. It is the admitted position that the

petitioner had time to time applied and obtained the permission for

factory stuffing under Excise provision in terms of the aforesaid

Circular.

7. The petitioner had time bound export contractual

obligations of 560 MT of casein prior to 18.02.2011, the details of the

order in respect of the same are:

(i) P.O. No.0004916 dated 21.01.2011 quantity

153MT.

(ii) P.O. No.0004930 dated 07.02.2011 quantity

102MT.

(iii) P.O. No.11563 dated 25.01.2011 quantity 51

MT.

(iv) P.O. No.11566 dated 14.02.2011 quantity 102

MT.

(v) P.O. No.0004920 dated 24.01.2011 quantity

102MT.

(vi) P.O. No.LE 110046 dated 02.02.2011 quantity

50MT.

8. Consignment of 135 MT of casein was made ready for

export to the importers. The petitioner filed four shipping bills and

sought factory stuffing permission in respect of the same. In terms of

the factory stuffing permission the petitioner requisitioned seven

containers for stuffing of the consignments for exports at the

petitoner‟s permission and thereafter applied to the jurisdictional

Central Excise Officers for examination of the goods, stuffing thereof

in the containers, seeking of the containers and endorsement of the

ARE-1‟s.

9. The excise officers examined the goods under four

shipping bills (in seven containers) on 16.02.2011, 16.02.2011,

16.02.2011 and 18.02.2011 and thereafter the same were removed

from the factory on the same very date and they were handed over at

ICD Tuglakabad on 17.02.2011 (at 06:07 am and 06:06 am in two

containers); 18.02.2011 (at 04.26 am and 04.26 am in two

containers); 17.02.2011 (at 07:23 am and 11:49 am in two

containers);19.02.2011 (at 2.47 am in one container). A chart

depicting the said movement of goods is already filed.

10. In the meanwhile, three notifications were isued by

respondent No.2 i.e. Notification No.23(RE-2010)/2009-2014 dated

18.02.2011, Notification No.25 (RE-2010/2009-2014) dated

24.02.2011, Notification No.37 E(RE-2010)/2009-2014 dated

24.03.2011 issued by the respondent No.2 purportedly in the exercise

of the powers conferred by the Section 5 of the Foreign Trade

(Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 whereby Director General of

Foreign Trade has prohibited the export of inter alia various milk and

milk products, including „casein‟ and „casein products‟, which the

petitioner was exporting.

11. The containers of the goods arrived at ICD Tughlakabad

on various dates and the petitioner thereafter presented the Shipping

Bills to the adjudicating authority for formal „Let Export Order‟,

however, the adjudicating authority disallowed the exports on the

reason that the goods that the goods were presented for examination

before the Custom Officer on 21.02.2011. Therefore, it cannot be

permitted in terms of the said notification. Thereafter the petitioner

filed the appeal in the office of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)

bearing No. CCA/ICD/207/2011.

12. After hearing the parties on 27.04.2011, the said appeal

was allowed and the impugned order disallowing the export of the in

goods was set aside. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) came

to the conclusion that the said order was not legal in view of the

notification No. 31/1997-Cus(NT) dated 07.07.1997 wherein it is

mentioned that all Supreintendents and Inspectors of Central Excise

Department in any place of India have been appointed as Officers of

Customs and therefoere presentation of goods for examination before

the jurisdictional Central Excise Officers for export is nothing but

presentation of goods for Customs examination for export in terms of

Para 9.12 of the Foreign Trade Policy and the stipulatinos of

Notification 37 (RE-2010)/2009-2014 dated 24.03.2011. As the

goods were presented for examination before the said officers prior to

18.02.2011 the exports are not hit by the probhibition imposed under

the Notification 23(RE-2010)/2009-2014 dated 18.02.2011 as the

same are covered under transitional provision of the said notification.

13. The operating part of order of Commissioner (Appeals)

dated 27.04.2011 reads as under:-

"I find that in terms of Para 9.12 of the Handbook of procedures 2009-14, in change of policy provisions, the same shall not be applicable to the consignment already handed over to Customs for examination and subsequent exports upto public Notice/Notification date. The relevant provisions are as below:

"However, wherever procedural /policy provisions have been modified

to disadvantage of exporters, same shall not be applicable to consignment already handed over to Customs for examination and subsequent exports upto Public Notice/Notification date.

Similarly, in such cases where goods are handed over to the customs authorities before expiry of export obligation period but actual Exports take place after the expiry of the export obligation period, such exports shall be considered within export obligation period and taken towards fulfillment of export obligation."

I find that export goods can be stuffed in containers at the Port of Export as well as at the factory premises of a manufacturer. The Appellant being a registered unit under the Central Excise registered with Registration No. AACCB2221 MXM001 was permitted factory stuffing in terms of CBEC's circular No.60/2001 dated 01.11.2001. I also find that in terms of Notification 31/1997-

Cus(NT) dated 07.07.1997 all Superintendents and Inspectors of Central Excise Department in any place of India have been appointed as Officers of Customs and therefore presentation of goods for examination for export in terms of para 9.12 of the Foreign Trade policy and the stipulations of Notification No.37 E(RE- 2010)/2009-2014 dated 24.03.2011(ANN-P- III). As the goods were presented for examination before the said officers prior to 18.02.2011, the exports are not hit by the prohibition imposed under Notification No.23 (RE-2010)/2009-2014 dated 18.02.2010 (ANN-P-I) as the same are covered under transitional provision of the said notification.

In view of the above, the impugned order is not legal and is therefore set aside."

14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3

has informed the Court that the order dated 27.04.2011 has been

challenged by the respondent No.3 by filing an appeal on 23.06.2011

before the Custom Excise and Service Tax Tribunal, New Delhi.

Since the said appeal is yet to be listed and there is no stay of the

operation of the said order, thus, the order dated 27.04.2011 is

operational.

15. The main concern of the petitioner at this stage is that the

petitioner has already suffered a demurrage to the tune of rupees

Twenty lacs, (now Twenty Seven lacs approximately) and the same

is being continued to be levied at an escalating rate. Further the

product in question „casein‟ has no domestic market. It has a shelve

life of one year. The goods in question were manufactured in

January-February 2011. Thus, the five months have passed. After

clearance the required shipping time to destination is one and a half

month and the importers also accept the product if approximate six

months of the shelve life of the products is remaining. As on date

five and a half months of shelve life of the product only remains.

16. The petitioner states that the effect of the impugned

notifications is that all the plant and machinery worth crores of rupees

is lying idle and the dues of the bank over Rs.150 Crores are

mounting and the Petitioner has the liability of paying the interests

and term loan repayment. The Petitioner has given direct

employment to hundreds of skilled and unskilled workers,

professionals, technicians, scientists in the filed of Diary Science,

Nutrition, Veterinary, Food Technology, life sciences and research

professionals.

17 The petitioner imported machinery against the EPCG

license. As pr the terms of this license, import duty was partially

waived of against the guarantee given by the petitioner that they will

make exports to the tune of certain crores and as per the said license.

If the petitioner fails in discharging the said obligation, then the

petitioner shall have to pay the import duty that was waived on the

import of the machines along with interest.

18. The petitioner submits that Commissioner of Customs

ICD Tuglakabad New Delhi has not till date, permitted the Petitioner

to export 135 MT of casen of the Petitioner, in spite of the clear

Orders dated 27.4.2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the

Appeal filed by the Petitioner wherein he, inter alia, held that the

petitioner was to be permitted to export Casen as the case of the

Petitioner was covered under notification dated 24.03.2011.

Therefore, the petitioner had no alternative except to file the present

writ petition.

19. It is also mentioned in the petition that the Additional

Commissioner Customs ICD Dadri NOIDA in the matter of another

exporter vide orders dated 04.05.2011 was pleased to permit the

export of the skimmed milk powder in respect of the goods as were

handed over to the Customs for export before the dead line i.e.,

18.02.2011 as per the notification dated 24.03.2011 and the

examination of the goods by the „Excise Officer‟ were taken to be

examination by the „Customs Officer‟.

20. It is further stated by the petitioner that in the case of

M/s VRS Foods Ltd., the department did not file any appeal against

the Orders dated 04.05.2011 of Addl. Commissioner Customs, ICD

Dadri ANN-P-XVI Page 122 and athe product which was factory

stuffed and examined by officers of the Central Excise was permitted

to be exported by the Custom Officials.

21. Respondent No. 3 has filed reply affidavit of Sh.

Navraj Goel, Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Export) on

24.6.2011 who has stated in his affidavit that the petitioner export 135

MT of casein is hit by prohibition imposed under notification 23(RE-

2010)/2009-2012 dated 18.2.2011. In the affidavit it is not denied

that the petitioner filed four shipping bills for export of Acid Casein

at ICD, Tuglakabad which are on or before 18 th February, 2011.

However, the contention of the respondent No. 3 is that the date of

assessment of shipping bill and the date of production of cargo to

customs were subsequent to the date of notification as the cargo was

handed over to the customs for examination and export subsequent to

the said date. In nut shell, respondent No. 3 states that the goods

ought to have handed over to the customs on or before 18 th February,

2011 for examination of export. Further contention of respondent No.

3 is that in case of factory stuffed cargo, where goods are examined in

the factory in the presence of jurisdiction Central Excise Officers, the

goods are not produced to Customs at the ICD/Port. Hence, it was

not permissible to permit export of impugned goods due to

prohibition in the notification.

22. Other submission of learned counsel for respondent No.

3 is that since the appeal has been filed by the respondents against the

order dated 27th April, 2011 therefore the issue in question is now

sub-judice and no order can be passed in the present writ petition,

however, some directions may be issued to the CESTAT for early

disposal of the appeal filed by respondent No. 3.

23. Now the question before this Court is as to whether the

exports are hit by prohibition imposed under notification dated 18th

February, 2011 or some are covered under transitional provision of

the notification and in terms of notification 31/1997-Cus(NT) dated

7th July, 1997 wherein the Superintendents and Inspectors of Central

Excise Department in any place of India have been appointed as

Officers of Customs and therefore the presentation of goods for

examination before the jurisdictional Central Excise Officers for

export is nothing but presentation of goods for Customs examination

for export.

24. The notification No. 31/97-Cus.(N.T.), dated 7th July,

1997 reads as under:-

"Appointment of Appraisers, Examiners, Superintendents, Inspectors, Preventive Officers, Women Searchers, Ministerial Officers and Class IV officers in the Customs Department in any place in India. Officers of DRI, Narcotics Control Bureau and EIB appointed as "Officers of Customs". - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 38/63-Customs, dated 1st February, 1963 the Central Government hereby appoints the following persons to be the Officers of Customs, namely:-

1. Appraisers, Examiners, Superintendent Customs (Preventive), Preventive Officers , Women Searchers, Ministerial Officers and Class IV Officers in the Customs Department in any place in India.

2. Superintendents, Inspectors, Women Searchers, Ministerial staff and Class IV staff of Central Excise Department, who are for the time being posted to a Customs port, Customs airport, Land-Customs station, Coastal por, Customs preventive post, Customs Intelligence post or a Customs warehouse.

3. Superintendents, and Inspectors of Central Excise Department in any place in India.

4. All Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.

5. All Officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau.

6. All Intelligence Officers of the Central Economic Intelligence Bureau."

25. The learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has not

shown/produced any other contrary notification other than the

notification dated 7th July, 1997 referred by the learned counsel for

the petitioner wherein it is clearly mentioned that all the

Superintendents and Inspectors of Central Excise Department in any

place of India have been appointed as Officers of Customs.

26. In the present case it is not disputed fact that the

petitioner is eligible for opting clearance of goods for exports and

examination thereof at the factory itself in terms of CBEC‟s Circular

No. 60/2001-Cus dated 01.11.2001 and the exports are permissible

for dairy products manufactured by the petitioner till 18.02.2011. The

respondent No.3 has also not disputed the fact that the petitioner

sought stuffing permission in respect of the same. The Circular No.

60 dated 1st November, 2001 referred by the petitioner reads as

under:-

              "CIRCULAR       NO.           60    DATED
               st
              1 November 2001

I am directed to refer to Board‟s instructions issued vide telex/ letter F.No. 434/47/95- Cus.IV, dated 9.10.95 and Circular No. 90/98-Cus. dated 8/12/98 regarding factory stuffing on containers with export cargo. The said instructions provide detailed guidelines for factory stuffing of container. It has been brought to the notice of the Board by the trade that exporters are required to obtain permission for factory stuffing from Customs every six months. It has been suggested that the Customs should do away with the practice of six monthly permission for factory stuffing and this should be made one time permission.

2. The matter has been examined by the Board. It has been decided to discontinue the practice of renewal of permission for factory stuffing every six months. The permission for factory stuffing shall be granted on one time basis and exporters shall not be required to come to Customs every six months for renewal of the same.

However, in case something adverse is noticed against the exporter, the Customs may withdraw the permission.

3. These instructions may be brought to the notice of all concerned by way of

issuance of suitable Public Notice/ Standing Order.

4. Difficulties, if any, in implementation of these instructions, may be brought to the notice of the Board. Kindly acknowledge receipt of this circular.

G. Circular No. 20/2010-Customs

F. No.450/ 98 /2010-Cus.IV Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Excise & Customs North Block, New Delhi 22nd July, 2010 To All Chief Commissioners of Customs / Customs (Prev.).

All Chief Commissioners of Customs & Central Excise.

All Commissioners of Customs / Customs (Prev.).

All Commissioners of Customs (Appeals).

All Commissioners of Customs & Central Excise.

All Commissioners of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals).

Subject: Provision of single factory stuffing permission valid for all Customs Houses - regarding.

              Sir/ Madam,

              I am directed to invite your attention
              to Board's    instructions  issued   vide

telex/letter F.No.434/47/95-Cus.IV, dated 9.10.95, Circular No. 90/98-Cus dated 8/12/98 and Circular No. 60/2001-CUS

dated 1st November, 2001 regarding Permission for factory stuffing.

2. The Task Force of the Department of Commerce to reduce transaction cost involved in exports has recommended the grant of a single factory stuffing permission valid for all the customs stations instead of customs station wise permission. This recommendation has been accepted by the Government.

3. Accordingly, it has been decided by the Board to provide for the grant of a single factory stuffing permission valid for all the customs stations instead of customs station wise permission. The facility will be subject to the following safeguards:

(i) The exporter may be asked to furnish to customs a list of customs stations from where he intends to export his goods.

(ii) The customs house granting the factory stuffing permission should maintain a proper register to keep a track-record of such permissions, and also create a unique serial number for each of such permissions.

(iii) The customs house granting the factory stuffing permission should circulate the permission to all customs houses concerned. The communication should clearly indicate the name and contact details of the Preventive Officer/Inspector and Superintendent concerned of the customs house granting the permission as well as those of the Central Excise Range concerned to facilitate real time verifications, if required.

(iv) In case, something adverse is noticed against the exporter, the customs station concerned shall promptly intimate the customs house which has granted the permission, which will, in turn, withdraw the permission, and inform to all customs houses concerned.

4. Board‟s earlier instructions /circulars stand modified to the extent mentioned above.

5. These instructions may be brought to the notice of all concerned by way of issuance of suitable Public Notice / Standing Order.

6. Difficulties, if any, in implementation of the Circular may be brought immediately to the notice of the Board.

Yours sincerely, (Navraj Goyal) Under Secretary (Customs)"

27. In case we see the entire matter on merit, it is obvious

that in fact, the petitioner has filed the present petition for

compliance of the said order dated 27.04.2011 passed by the

Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). It is not denied by the

respondent No.3 that on the date of filing of the petition, the

petitioner has incurred demurrage of Rs. 20 lac and the amount of

demurrage against the petitioner are continuing every day. The

petitioner‟s case is that the notification dated 18.02.2011 was issued

without any intimation/notice whatsoever given by the respondents to

the petitioner or any concerned parties though many courts have time

and again held that legitimate expectations but a fact of the Rule of

Law and Administrative action must be in conformity with the

Legitimate Expectation of persons. The petitioner says that in view

thereof, the respondents have no power to take away any vested

rights with retrospective effect.

28. The respondent No.3 has not disputed the fact that the Excise

Officers examined the goods under four shipping bills (in seven

containers) on 16.02.2011, 16.02.2011, 16.02.2011 and 18.02.2011

and thereafter the same were removed from the factory on the same

very date and they were handed over at ICD Tuglakabad on

17.02.2011 (at 06:07 am and 06:06 am in two containers); 18.02.2011

(at 04.26 am and 04.26 am in two containers); 17.02.2011 (at 07:23

am and 11:49 am in two containers);19.02.2011 (at 2.47 am in one

container). The defendant No.3 has also not denied that the

containers of the goods arrived at ICD Tughlakabad on various dates

and the petitioner thereafter presented the Shipping Bills to the

adjudicating authority for formal „Let Export Order‟.

There is a force in the submission of the petitioner that

the petitioner has completed all the formalities for exportable goods

under the compliance of notification dated 07.07.1997 which provides

that all Superintendents and Inspectors of Central Excise Department

in any place of India have been appointed as Officers of Customs.

29. In terms of para 9.12 of Handbook procedures 2009-14,

which provides that in case of change of policy provisions, the same

shall not be applicable to the consignment already handed over to

Customs for examination and subsequent exports up to Public

Notice/Notification date. The relevant provisions are as below:

"However, wherever Procedural/Policy provisions have been modified to disadvantage of exporters, same shall not be applicable to consignments already handed over to Customs for examination and subsequent exports upto Public Notice/Notification date.

Similarly, in such cases where goods are handed over to the customs authorities before expiry of export obligation period but actual Exports take place after expiry of the export obligation period, such exports shall be considered within export obligation period and taken towards fulfilment of export obligation."

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent

No.3 has not informed the concerned parties about the notification

dated 18.02.2011otherwise there was no occasion on the part of the

petitioner not to comply any other formality, if left and is required by

the custom authorities.

30. After having considered the above, we feel that in case there is

any procedural delay, the petitioner cannot be blamed as the petitioner

has completed the formalities in terms of notification dated

07.07.1987. Therefore, it is apparent on the face of it that the exports

are not hit by the provision imposed under the notification dated

18.02.2011.

31. It is not understood why the respondent No.3 has not

challenged the order dated 27.04.2011 promptly if respondents were

serious about the said order, rather the appeal was filed after filing

the present writ petition by that time the petitioner had to incur

demurrages of Rs. 20 lac on the date of filing.

32. In similar situations in the case of M/s VRS Foods

(supra) orders were passed by Additional Commissioner, ICD on 4 th

May, 2011 and in the said case the goods were examined by the

Central Excise Officer under their supervision for container No.

SGCU 2458144 & TGHU 0144617 and brought in the customs area

on 18.02.2011 (but after office hours) already had been examined by

the Central Excise Officer on 18.02.2011.

33. The respondents have banned the export casein which is

made from less than 0.25% of the total milk production in the country

as per the case of the petitioner while it is an admitted position that

the respondents have not banned the export of the other milk products

like cheese, ghee, butter etc.

34. In the present case, in case the export of Casein and

Casein products of the petitioner are not allowed, it will cause

irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner as the said goods cannot

be re-used. It is also a fact that there is no loss of custom duty as

admitted by the respondent No.3. Therefore, the balance of

conveyance even otherwise lies in favour of the petitioner and against

the respondents. The Division Bench judgment of Bombay High

Court titled Parag Milk and Milk Products Ltd. v. Union of India

dated 16th August, 2007 has allowed the export in similar situation.

Para 10 of the judgment reads as under:-

"10. The above principles, if applied to the present case, would show that the doctrine of legitimate expectancy, and for limited extent of constructive promissory estoppel, would have some application. The petitioner has invested huge amount to establish a plant and export facilities of international standards. The declared policy was to operate during the period of 2004 to 2009. Prospective application of the ban is not in question before us. On various grounds the same could even be justified. However,if the concluded contracts, which have been acted upon between the parties partially prior to the cut off date are not fulfilled, it would, to a great extent, amount to disturbing the settled things. Such an approach would be greatly unacceptable in view of the fact that the respondent themselves had reserved the

right to examine on case to case basis the existing export obligations. Nowhere in the order, and for that matter even in the counter affidavit, it is stated what would be the existing export obligation and under what circumstances the benefit of the decision could be given to the affected parties. Public interest is a term of wide connotation and it has to be considered keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. The Authorities concerned while passing the order dated 30th April, 2007 had ignored these aspects of the matter while it has taken into consideration what is not on record. There is nothing even on the court file to show as to what is intended by existing export obligation, simplicity except obligation in relation to free trade items. We may also notice that on 20th April, 2007 some discussion had taken place between the Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce and the petitioner. Vide their letter of the same date they had stated that as per the discussions the petitioner may be allowed to export 5000 M.T. Skimmed Milk Powder against existing contractual obligations. Thus the petitioner was even willing to restrict its trade to export of 5000 M.T. The impugned order does not even touch this aspect of the matter in its proper perspective."

35. From the above discussion, we allow the interim

application filed by the petitioner. We direct the respondents to

allow the petitioner to export the goods in question in terms of the

prayer made in the application.

WP(C) 3839/2011

Notice has already been issued in the writ petition. The

respondent No.3 is granted four weeks time to file the counter

affidavit with advance copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner

who may file the rejoinder thereto within two weeks thereafter.

List the matter before the Roster Bench on 26.08.2011.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

SURESH KAIT, J.

JULY 05, 2011 ns/ak/dp