1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2420 OF 1994 M/s UNI Gems (I) Ltd. & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s Union of India & Ors. . Respondents Mr. Mohan Jayakar i/b Khaitan & Jayakar for the Petitioners. Mr. R.V. Desai, Senior Advocate with Mr. P.S. Jetly for respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 22ND JULY 2009 P.C. : 1. In the affidavit filed by Mr. Sanjay Lunia working as Joint Director of Foreign Trade, we find the following averments:- “In view of this, I, vide my letter dated 5.8.2003 informed the Petitioners that the licence as claimed by the Petitioners to have been submitted to the Office of the Director General of Foreign Trade was not traceable and that in the absence of the licence premium cannot be ascertained. This is due to the fact 2 that premium is required to be ascertained on the actual utilised value of the licence and actual utilised value of the licence cannot be ascertained in the absence of the licence. In order to resolve the situation, the Office of the Director General of Foreign Trade by its letter dated 06.02.2004 addressed to the Petitioners’ advocate Mr. S.P. Bharati has requested petitioners to give inspection of the original documents like the original receipts under which the petitioners filed the premium application and original receipt under which the Petitioners has filed the various letters referred to in the Petition. Thus it is submitted that if petitioners are able to give inspection of the original receipt bearing no.707879 dated 15.10.1993 (must be 1983), the department subject to the approval of Reserve Bank of India would be willing to calculate the entitlement on the basis of the bills of entries submitted by the petitioners as an evidence of utilization of the licence. However, department has taken up the matter with the Reserve Bank of India for it’s concurrence in taking that course of action and RBI’s approval on the same is awaited. The concurrence of RBI is necessary as the premium scheme is jointly operated by the DGFT and RBI and before making of any payment by DGFT the same is required to be pre audited by Reserve Bank of India.” 3 2. It is thus clear that the respondents have not rejected the petitioners’ case but are not in a position to decide the entire issue considering the misplacement of the original receipt bearing no.707879 dated 15th October 1993 (must be 1983). On behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel submits the petitioners have submitted the necessary documents. 3. In the light of the above, the respondents are directed to complete the procedure within 3 months from today. 4. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. D.G. KARNIK, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)