2023 (7) TMI 644 - HC - Customs

Cancellation of Advance Licenses - consideration of materials/documents and providing appropriate calculations to the petitioners so that the benefit under the licenses can be ascertained and whether the same would be available to the petitioners - HELD THAT - Certainly, in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it may not be possible for this Court to exercise any executory jurisdiction. Article 226 of the Constitution would confer powers of judicial review on the High Court, to issue appropriate writs, when the aggrieved petitioners seek redressal in regard to infringement of any legal right or Constitutional rights. Certainly, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would pass orders which are purely executory - In the present case, this Court had already adjudicated the writ petition filed by the petitioner in terms of a detailed order. All consequences under the order stand crystallized. In the event, there is any intentional breach or disobedience of the orders passed by this Court, the remedy for the petitioner was to file a contempt petition. In the absence of any intentional or deliberate disobedience, the remedy available for the petitioner is to execute the orders passed by the Court in execution proceedings, as provided in Rule 647 of contained in chapter XXXIII of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules 1980, as the orders passed on Writ Petition are treated as a decree made in exercise of the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court. There can be no two opinions on this clear position in law. The petition cannot be adjudicated upon - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are compliance with court orders and directions given by the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) regarding the revalidation of Advance Licenses.

Comprehensive details:

Issue 1: Compliance with Court Orders
The petitioners had filed a writ petition in 2018 which was allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). However, there were observations regarding 29 licenses that had been cancelled by the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade. The Appellate Authority was directed to decide on the appeal from the order dated 24th February 1997/9th April 1997. Subsequently, the Director General of Foreign Trade set aside the original order dated 24 February 1997 and remanded the case back to the Adjudicating Authority for revalidation of the Advance Licenses. The petitioners approached the court again as the directions were not being complied with. The court directed the respondents to consider the materials/documents and provide appropriate calculations to ascertain the benefits under the licenses for the petitioners.

Issue 2: Judicial Review and Executory Jurisdiction
The court clarified that in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, it may not be possible to exercise executory jurisdiction. The court had already passed detailed orders on the writ petition, and all consequences under the order were crystallized. If there was intentional breach or disobedience of the orders, the remedy for the petitioner was to file a contempt petition. In the absence of intentional disobedience, the petitioner could execute the orders through execution proceedings. The court emphasized that the orders passed on the writ petition are treated as a decree made in the exercise of the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the court.

Conclusion:
The court disposed of the writ petition, stating that all contentions of the parties are kept open. Mr. Walve was requested to undertake calculations and furnish the same to the parties within four weeks. The court could not adjudicate the petition further based on the observations made. No costs were awarded in this matter.