1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9811 OF 2009 M/s.Global Exim. ... Petitioner. V/s. The Union of India and another. ... Respondents. Rafique Dada, senior counsel Jeeth Motwani i/b PDS Legal for the petitioner. A.S.Rao i/b. H.V.Mehta for the respondents. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND K.K.TATED, JJ. DATED : 17th March 2010. P.C. : Heard. Perused petition. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Rao appearing with Mr.Mehta waives service for the respondents. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that they are holders of 30 Duty Free Import Authorisations. They have earlier submitted one such authorisation for amendment of 2 licence, which was granted vide endorsement dated 23rd July, 2009, specifically, for the purpose of import of dry fruits and packing material. The licences originally stood in favour of Parle Products Private Limited. 3. The petitioner holds another twelve similar licences purchased by them in the open market from M/s.Parle Products Private Limited. On 6th June, 2009, they had applied to the Director General of Foreign Trade ( DGFT for short) for amendment in the said licences to include dry fruits and packing materials. 4. Mr.Rafique Dada, learned senior counsel for the petitioner took us through the policy to point out that the said items can be imported even if not used in the exported material since the subject licences were issued between the period 16th January, 2006 and 7th January, 2009 as such respondents were under an obligation to make endorsement sought by the petitioner. 5. According to Mr.Rafique Dada, the very issue was a subject matter of consideration before this Court in Writ Petition No.7185/2009 filed at the instance of the petitioner which came to be decided vide order dated 15th September, 2009; wherein this Court was pleased to remand the matter to the DGFT with direction to take decision in the matter of endorsement on the licences submitted by the petitioner. The DGFT vide its letter dated 10th November, 2009, has informed the petitioner that the matter was referred to the Norms Committee and, in turn, the Norms 3 Committee has taken decision in this behalf adverse to the petitioner, which is clear from the communication dated 10th November, 2009. The minutes of the Norms Committee are produced on record. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner makes a grievance that under the remand order directions were given to the DGFT to take decision in the light of the fact that almost 20 to 24 persons were granted endorsements on the licences held by them, similar to the one requested by the petitioner. However, in the order of the Norms Committee, there is no whisper as to how and under what circumstances endorsements were made on those licences, if their policy did not permit such endorsements. In reply, learned counsel for the Revenue admitted to have endorsed some of the licences. The allegations made by the petitioner in this behalf are admitted and same explanation is sought to be given though no explanation is to be found in the minutes of the Norms Committee. 7. In the aforesaid view of the matter, It is clear that directions given by this Court vide order dated 15th September, 2009 have not been complied with in its true letter and spirit. The DGFT itself did not decide the matter and referred it to the Norms Committee for decision. Committee devised fresh norms without dealing with contentions raised by the petitioner. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, impugned communication dated 10th November, 2009 is set aside. 4 Matter is restored to file of the DGFT with direction to hear the petitioner and pass a reasoned order following principles of natural justice, in the light of the policy prevailing during the relevant period taking into account the fact that in respect of almost 14 licences endorsements similar to one claimed by the petitioner were made. We expect DGFT to decide the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 9. Mr.Rao undertakes to communicate this order to the DGFT. Petitioner to appear before the DGFT on 22nd March, 2010 so as to enable the DGFT either to hear the petitioner on this date or fix suitable date of hearing. 10. Needless to mention that in the event matter is not decided with the prescribed time schedule, it would be open to the petitioner to apply for revalidation of their licences. Petitioner has assured this Court not to take any adjournment on any count. 11. In the result, rule is made absolute in terms of this order with no order as to costs. (K.K.TATED, J.) (V.C.DAGA J.)