Delhi High Court
Dr. ReddyâS Laboratories ... vs Union Of India And Others on 10 January, 2018
$~38
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1046/2016
Date of decision: 10th January, 2018
DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED AND ANOTHER
..... Petitioners
Through Mr. S. Ganesh Sr. Advocate with Ms.
Neelima Tripathi and Ms. Vidhi Gupta,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Jasmeet Singh, CGSC for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
SANJIV KHANNA J. (ORAL):
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited and M.V. Narasimham have filed
the present writ petition with prayers which include challenge to sub-para (i)
of paragraph 3 of Notification No. 43(RE-2013) 2009-2014 dated 25th
September, 2013 and sub-para (i) of paragraph 2 of Notification No. 44(RE-
2013) 2009-2014 dated 25th September, 2013.
2. The petitioners, have however given up challenge to the constitutional
vires of the aforesaid sub-paragraphs in the two notifications, in view of the
decision dated 7th January, 2016 in Writ Petition (C) No. 6732/2015, T.T.
W.P. (C) No. 1046/2016 Page 1 of 4
Limited versus Union of India and Another in which a similar contention
was raised and rejected. We shall be subsequently again refer to this
decision.
3. The substantive prayer made by the petitioner is for direction to the
respondents to process their claim under the Incremental Export
Incentivization Scheme (Annual) in accordance with law. The contention is
that the petitioner application dated 30th November, 2015, for grant of Rs.
29.12 crores as annual incentive has not been disposed of.
4. Counsel for the respondents has drawn our attention to the order dated
7th September, 2016 granting duty credit of Rs.1 crore under the scheme.
The said order was filed by the petitioner alongwith the additional affidavit
filed on 9th January, 2017.
5. The petitioner submits that the latter dated 7th September, 2016 is
merely a communication and does not dispose of the application filed by the
petitioner for duty credit of Rs.29.17 crores. Reference is made to
Notification No. 3(RE-2013)/2009-2014 dated 18th April, 2013.
6. Our attention was drawn to Section 9 of the Foreign Trade
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. In fact the Counsel for the
respondents relies on the said provision. Sub-Section (4) to Section 9 states
that Director General or an officer authorised under sub-section (2) can for
good and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing suspend or cancel any
license, certificate, scrip or instrument bestowing financial or fiscal benefit
granted under the Act. Respondents state that the application filed by the
petitioner has to be dealt with and examined in accordance with Section 9.
W.P. (C) No. 1046/2016 Page 2 of 4
This being the position and stand of the respondents, it is required and
necessary that the application should be dealt with and examined on merits
by passing a speaking and a reasoned order. In T.T. Limited (supra), the
Division Bench had specifically directed that the claim made by the
petitioner therein should be disposed of by passing a reasoned order, after
due application of mind on the contents of the application.
7. During the course of hearing, it was pointed out by the petitioner that
M/s T.T. Limited had filed W.P.(C) No. 2000/2016 as the respondents
pursuant to the direction given in W.P.(C) No. 6732/2015 had again passed a
non-speaking order rejecting the claim. This was adversely commented
upon in orders passed in W.P.(C) No. 2000/2016, filed T.T. Limited and on
subsequent dates. Thereafter, T.T. Limited has filed W.P.(C) No.
11001/2017 in which notice has been issued and reply, etc. is awaited.
8. We have noticed the stand taken by the respondents, who rely upon
Section 9 of the afore-stated Act. Sub-Section (4) of the said Act mandates
and requires the authority to pass a reasoned and a speaking order. The
respondents, we believe, are conscious of the aforesaid position and the
requirement by the statute to pass a speaking and reasoned order. The said
exercise must be undertaken. This is a specific direction of the Court and in
case a speaking and a reasoned order is not passed, appropriate directions
and orders, adverse comments, including imposition of costs may be
required and can be made. We also hope and trust that the respondents
would abide by the said stipulation.
9. To cut short delay, we direct that authorised representative of the
petitioner will appear before the Authority on 18th January, 2018 at 2.30
W.P. (C) No. 1046/2016 Page 3 of 4
P.M. He shall be heard on the said date and thereafter a speaking and a
reasoned order would be passed on or before 31st January, 2018. In case the
petitioners are aggrieved by the said order, they will be entitled to challenge
and question the same in accordance with law.
10. Counsel for the respondents would inform the counsel for the
petitioners about the details of the officer before whom appearance is to be
made.
11. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, without any
order as to costs.
Dasti under signature of the Court Master.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.
JANUARY 10, 2018
VKR
