IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.141 of 2009 1.THE UNION OF INDIA through its Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Commerce) Udyog Bhawan, New delhi-11- 011. 2.Directorate General of Foreign Trade, Udyog Bhawan, NewD Delhi 3.Deputy Director General, Directorate General of foreign Trade, Ground Floor, Biscoman Bhawan, P.S.Gandhi Maidan, Patna. ---- Appellants. Versus M/S AMAN ENTERPRISES through its Proprietor Mr. Pahel singh, T-21/A, Khirki Extension, P.S.Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.--- Respondent. ---------- For the appellants : Mr. Sarbdeo Singh for the respondent : None Reg: I.A.No.953 of 2009. 2. 12.2.2009. This application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Mr. Sarbdeo Singh appears on behalf of the appellants. According to the Stamp Reporter, the appeal is barred by limitation of 308 days. From the averment made in the application, it is evident that the Government counsel did not advice to file appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, in the light of the advice of the Zonal Office of the Department, it has been filed and in this process, considerable time was consumed. We are of the opinion that the cause 2 shown is not sufficient to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, this application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal is dismissed. However, good cause may not be lost on the ground of limitation we have examined the correctness of the impugned order. The order impugned in the writ application was the order by which 38 Duty Free Replacement Credit Licences (DFRC Licences) granted to the petitioner in terms of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 were cancelled. The learned Single Judge quashed the aforesaid order and while doing so, it observed as follows: “Then notwithstanding the appellate order, as aforesaid, which was passed on 26th May 2006, the present impugned order has been passed on the 13th of July 2006. As noticed above, the appellate order has set aside the cancellation order and found the petitioner not guilty and not liable to suffer the consequences of cancellation of the said licences yet the original authority at Patna on the same very facts and on the same very investigation and on the same very finding deems it proper to cancel the licences. This is what the petitioner is aggrieved by. The petitioner’s grievance is that when the appellate authority, on the same set of facts, decided the matter as between the parties in a particular manner then the original authority at 3 Patna could not take a different view of the matter. Both the appellate and the two original authorities at Delhi and Patna being disciples of the same statute and acting under the same statute and acting on the basis of the same very investigation and reports, the order of the appellate authority had to be regarded. In my view, the contention is to be accepted.” We do not find any error in the order impugned. Application as also the appeal stand dismissed. ahk (C. K. Prasad,ACJ) (Shyam Kishore Sharma)