2009 (7) TMI 571 - HC - Customs

Advance licence, failure to issue- The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition in 1998 claiming compensation of Rs.98,35,878/- with interest for failure of the respondent-authorities to issue value based advance licences in terms of Export and Import Policy for the year 1993-94. This Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and the Order was upheld in LPA No. 187/2002. The Division Bench noticed that the petitioner had alleged delay in processing of his applications for issue of export licences and alleged resultant loss. It was held that the writ jurisdiction was not correctly invoked and the controversy raised could be appropriately resolved in a regular suit. The petitioner thereafter filed a review application which was dismissed and a Special Leave Petition against the said orders passed by the Division Bench. Special Leave Petition was dismissed. Held that- The petitioner has filed a civil suit for recovery of damages before the Bombay High Court. Order dated 5th May, 2006 passed by the Division Bench quoted above in the said suit does not permit and allow the petitioner to start another round of litigation in a writ to claim damages. The representation made and its rejection in the present case, do not furnish a fresh cause of action, independent of the civil suit. - the petitioner has made sweeping and general allegations against the respondent-Union of India on the ground that his human rights and Fundamental Rights have been violated by failure to issue import licence in the year 1993-94. I do not see any reason to initiate contempt proceedings on the basis of the said general, vague and sweeping allegations.With the aforesaid observation, the Contempt Petition is also disposed of.

Issues:
1. Invocation of writ jurisdiction for claiming compensation for failure to issue advance licences.
2. Dismissal of writ petition by Single Judge and Division Bench.
3. Filing of review application and Special Leave Petition.
4. Suit for recovery filed before the High Court of Bombay.
5. Disposal of representation and rejection by Grievance Redressal Committee.
6. Allegations of non-compliance of Division Bench's order by the respondent.
7. Allegations of human rights and Fundamental Rights violation by the respondent.

1. Invocation of Writ Jurisdiction:
The petitioner approached the Delhi High Court seeking compensation for the failure of the respondent authorities to issue value-based advance licences. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, upholding the decision in LPA No. 187/2002, stating that the controversy could be resolved in a regular suit rather than through writ jurisdiction.

2. Dismissal of Writ Petition:
After the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner filed a review application which was also dismissed. Subsequently, a Special Leave Petition against the Division Bench's orders was also dismissed, leading to the petitioner filing a suit for recovery before the High Court of Bombay.

3. Filing of Review Application and Special Leave Petition:
Despite the dismissal of the review application and Special Leave Petition, the petitioner persisted in seeking compensation through various applications and appeals in the suit filed before the High Court of Bombay.

4. Suit for Recovery before High Court of Bombay:
The petitioner continued to file multiple applications for notice of motion in the suit for recovery before the High Court of Bombay, facing adverse orders and subsequent appeals. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court granted the petitioner an opportunity to resolve the controversy amicably with the respondents.

5. Disposal of Representation and Rejection by Grievance Redressal Committee:
The petitioner's representation seeking settlement of the controversy was disposed of, citing relevant provisions of export and import policy. The Grievance Redressal Committee rejected the petitioner's representation, emphasizing that the civil suit for recovery filed by the petitioner was the appropriate course of action.

6. Allegations of Non-Compliance of Division Bench's Order:
The petitioner alleged non-compliance of the Division Bench's order by the respondent in a Contempt Petition. The Court clarified that any perceived non-compliance should be addressed by initiating appropriate proceedings before the Bombay High Court.

7. Allegations of Human Rights and Fundamental Rights Violation:
The petitioner made sweeping allegations of human rights and Fundamental Rights violation by the respondent due to the failure to issue import licences in 1993-94. The Court dismissed these vague and general allegations, stating they did not warrant contempt proceedings.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and applications, advising the petitioner to address any non-compliance issues with the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. The Court also rejected the petitioner's broad allegations of human rights violations, emphasizing the need for specific and actionable claims.

← Previous Next →