9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (7) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned from time to time for one or the other reason. On the re-opening of the Court, the petition was posted before Shri Justice Kantharia on June 8,1990. The learned Judge felt that the petition should be heard by Justice Kotwal because some oral directions were given by the learned Judge about filing of affidavit-in-reply. The learned Chief Justice then directed that the petition should be posted before me for hearing. I have heard the petitioner, who appeared in person and Shri Deodhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The first grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have declined to grant subsidiary licence in respect of import licence granted to the petitioner in the year 1983-84. The licence for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the failure of respondents in not granting the application till end of March 1988. The respondents cannot take advantage of change of policy which came into force from April 1,1988 to deprive the petitioner of subsidiary licence. Shri Deodhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the validity period of the licence granted on February 16,1988 expired after 18 months and the petitioner approached this Court only on January 30,1990, i.e. long after the expiry of validity period of 18 months and, therefore, the relief should not be granted. It is not possible to accede to the submission of the learned counsel. The right to claim and use subsidiary licence arises provided the value of import permitted by the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns, and with considerable merit, that insertion of this condition at the initial stage and restoration thereafter is wholly incorrect because this action is in contravention of Import Policy of the year 1984. The submission is correct. Shri Deodhar could not explain why initially such condition was inserted, then it was deleted and then again restored. The petitioner is right in claiming that deletion was proper and restoration was wholly incorrect. The respondents are, therefore, required to be directed that the licence should be corrected and the condition should be deleted. 4. The last contention urged by the petitioner is in respect of grant of import licence for the years 1985,1986,1987 and 1988. These four import licences were grant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30,1990, i.e. before the expiry of period of 18 months in respect of three licences and within three months from the expiry of licence of year 1985, the mere grant of declaration that the period of 18 months would commence from the date when the slips were attached would not confer any practical advantage on the petitioner, unless the respondents are directed to extend the period for a duration of six months from today. It is undoubtedly true that due to the pendency of the petition and inability of this Court to hear it before April 1990 has caused prejudice to the petitioner. In my judgment, the petitioner can be compensated by directing the respondents to extend the period of these four licences for a duration of three months from the da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
