9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1926 - HC - CustomsSeeking revalidation of unused three DFIA licences - HELD THAT - Whether the petitioner is entitled for revalidating of such unused three DFIA licences or not is for the first respondent to consider and decide. Therefore, this Court, at this stage, is not expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner. However, as the petitioner has made a representation dated 21.11.2017 for effecting such revalidation, it is for the first respondent to consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law without loss of further time. This writ petition is disposed of only with a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.11.2017 and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Issues:
Petitioner seeking mandamus to revalidate three unused DFIA licenses issued by the 1st respondent. Analysis: The petitioner approached the court seeking a mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to revalidate three unused DFIA licenses standing in their name. The petitioner referred to previous judgments in similar cases to support their claim. The court noted that a counter affidavit was filed by the first respondent in response to the petition. The main issue before the court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the revalidation of the three unused DFIA licenses. The court refrained from expressing any view on the merits of the claim at that stage. Instead, the court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.11.2017 for revalidation. The court emphasized that it was the first respondent's responsibility to decide on the revalidation and pass orders in accordance with the law without delay. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition with a specific direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and issue orders on the same within four weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the court's order. The judgment concluded by stating that no costs were to be imposed in this matter.
|
