9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (1) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition before this Court should, by themselves, pursuade us to decline to interfere. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facility for the import of OGL items as is available in the case of replenishment licences issued to export houses under clauses [1] and [3] of para 185 of A-M 1983 policy. Paragraph 185 [4] of the AM 1983 provided : (4) The facility for import of OGL items available in sub-para [3] above, may also be allowed, on merits, to Export Houses against their advance/imprest licences on account of which they are rendered ineligible to obtain REP licence. In such cases, however, the value upto which the OGL import may be allowed, will not exceed the value to which the Export House would have been eligible to the REP licence, had he not obtained advance/imprest licence in question. This facility will be available to the Export House after he has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period AM 83 for grant of revalidation and endorsement for import of OGL items without debiting the licence in terms of para 185 of Import Policy for the period 1982-83 after 5 years of the expiry of the licence for which the export obligation period was discharged on 25.10.80, 22/25.10.80, 29.10.80, 19.5.81, 5.5.81, 22.6.81, 5.5.81, 20.5.81, 29.6.81 & 22.9.81. In other words, you have made a request for revalidation and endorsement under para 185 of AM 83 Policy after 4 years and 7 months from the discharge of the export obligation. It is, therefore, obvious that you have not cared to apply immediately after discharge of export obligation and as such your request is grossly time-barred..." The second aspect is as to the merits an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave Petitions 4670 of 1986 and 7389 of 1985, respectively, preferred by the Union of India, against the said two judgments of the Bombay High Court were dismissed by this Court and that, therefore, the rejection by the authorities, of the petitioners' claim for similar revalidation of the six Imprest-Licences and endorsement for OGL items would, in view of grant of revalidation and endorsement in those cases, be discriminatory and violative of Article 14. It is contended for the petitioners that the grounds for refusal put-forward by the authorities in the case of M/s. Ripal Kumar & Co. and M/s. H. Patel & Co., were exactly similar to those preferred in the case of petitioners also and that those grounds had been found by the courts to be i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dorsement was made on 12.3.1984 within four months of the date of the redemption certificate dated 16.11.1983 and in the later case the application for revalidation was filed on 20.6.1984 in about three months from the Redemption Certificate dated 9.3.1984. 6. On a consideration of the matter we think that apart altogether from the merits of the other grounds for rejection, the inordinate delay in preferring the claim before the authorities as also the delay in filing the writ petition before this Court should, by themselves, pursuade us to decline to interfere. In Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller, I & E. [1969 (2) SCR 861] this Court observed: "...It is well known that the exchange position of this country and the policy of the Governme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
