9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Import of hard synthetic waste yarn. 2. Rejection of application for supplementary license. 3. Obstruction by Textile Commissioner in revalidating the license. 4. Availability of waste yarn in the country. 5. Legal obligation to revalidate the license. 6. Granting the petition for revalidation of the license. Analysis: 1. The petitioners, a partnership firm, established an Industrial Undertaking for manufacturing mixed waste yarn, requiring hard synthetic waste as raw material. Due to the unavailability of such waste domestically, they applied for a supplementary license for import under the Import Export Policy. The original license was granted in 1986, but issues arose during the revalidation process as the validity expired before approval, leading to the filing of the petition in 1990. 2. The application for revalidation was initially rejected on the grounds of domestic availability of waste yarn. Despite representations and a report from SASMIRA confirming the scarcity of synthetic waste, the Textile Commissioner obstructed the revalidation process, leading to a legal battle. The Single Judge initially directed revalidation until December 1990, but an appeal by the respondents stayed the order, leading to a final hearing in 1993. 3. The counsel for the petitioners argued that the Textile Commissioner's attitude obstructed revalidation, as evidenced by correspondence. The respondents contended that the Commissioner's actions were not obstructive and that revalidation was unnecessary due to policy changes allowing import under open general category. However, the Court found in favor of the petitioners, noting the Commissioner's interference and directing revalidation despite policy changes not benefiting the petitioners. 4. The Court emphasized the importance of the report from SASMIRA, highlighting the scarcity of synthetic waste domestically. The Textile Commissioner's persistent denial of revalidation based on outdated observations and irrelevant factors was deemed unjustified. The Court held that the respondents were obligated to revalidate the license to ensure fairness and prevent unnecessary obstacles in the petitioners' legitimate request. 5. Consequently, the petition succeeded, and the respondents were directed to revalidate the supplementary license for a specified period, adhering to the original conditions. The Court stressed the importance of upholding principles of justice and preventing bureaucratic hindrances in legitimate business operations, ordering the respondents to revalidate the license promptly and bear the costs of the petition.
|
