Delhi High Court
Ifb Industries Ltd. vs Union Of India & Anr. on 10 September, 2015
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8031/2015 & C. M. APPL. 16465/2015
Date of Judgment : 10.09.2015
IFB INDUSTRIES LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. S. Ganesh, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Maneesha Dhir, Mrs. Jayashree,
Mrs. Geeta Sharma and Mr. Aseem
Swaroop, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC with
Mr. Arun Kumar and Mr. Jay Karan
Singh, Advocates for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G. S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 09.06.2015 passed
by Policy Relaxation Committee.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
vide order dated 14.07.2004 was declared as a sick industrial company
and IDBI was appointed as the Operating Agency who prepared the
rehabilitation scheme. The scheme was sanctioned on 14.01.2009.
Para 12.4(b) of the Scheme provided for "To consider grant of
extension of Export Ob ligation for a further period of 5 years to be
adjusted against current exports under clause 4.1.9A of Foreign Trade
Policy 2004-09 against liability of Rs.532 lakhs." The petitioner on
26.06.2009 approached the Chairman of Policy Relaxation Committee,
Director General Foreign Trade, New Delhi for bringing to its notice
the order dated 14.01.2009 passed by the BIFR. On 23.09.2009, the
BIFR disposed of the miscellaneous applications filed by the petitioner
directing the DGFT to consider grant of extension of export obligation
for a further period of five years to be adjusted against current export as
per the list containing particulars of 22 licences.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that during the extended period, exports
were carried out to the total tune of Rs. 13,14,27,465/- and Rs.
38,03,291/- in quantitative terms. The grievance of the petitioner is that
further extension sought with respect to 8 licences, has been rejected
while similarly placed persons have been granted relaxation. It is also
submitted that the Committee has failed to accede to the request of the
petitioner to club the licences and request for correction of wrong
reference number was rejected and consequently the credit for export
was not given. Mr. Ganesh also contends that before passing the order
of rejection no personal hearing was granted to the petitioners.
4. We are also informed that after the passing of the order, a
communication has been addressed to the petitioner granting an
opportunity for personal hearing.
5. We had passed over the matter once to enable Mr. Jetly, learned
counsel for respondent no. 1 to take appropriate instructions. Mr.Jetly
submits, on instructions, that although the request of the petitioner for
personal hearing was acceded to but no representation was made as per
the prescribed procedure laid out in Para 2.59 of Foreign Trade Policy
and no application was filed under Appendix 2K as per PH in ANF2E.
6. In view of the subsequent development i.e. request of the petitioner
having been accepted to grant a hearing, we dispose of this writ petition
on the following terms :
(i) The petitioner will make a representation to the respondent in
terms of Appendix 2K as per PH in ANF2E within 2 weeks.
(ii) The petitioner would be entitled to raise all grounds as raised in
the writ petition or such other grounds which may be available
to the petitioner.
(iii) The respondent will grant a personal hearing to the petitioner
and or their representative within a period of four weeks
thereafter.
(iv) The petitioner would be entitled to produce such supporting
documents within the same period.
(v) After the hearing, the respondents will pass a speaking order
within a period of four weeks thereafter.
7. The impugned order dated 09.06.2015 is quashed.
8. Order dasti.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
SEPTEMBER 10, 2015
sc
