1 wp597610 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5976 OF 2010 Stonemann Royale Ltd. & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus Union of India & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. J.D. Mistry with Ms. Kiran Doiphode i/by M/s. V.M. Doiphode and Co. for the Petitioners Mr. R.V. Desai, Senior Advocate, with Mr. A.S. Rao for the Respondents. CORAM: V.C. DAGA AND R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 2, 2010 P.C.:- Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Rao waives service on behalf of the respondents. Heard finally by consent. 2. This petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the Order dated 18th June, 2010 passed by the Director General of 2 wp597610 Foreign Trade (DGFT), Government of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Commerce, Directorate General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, whereby and whereunder, the petitioners are allowed to import the balance quantity of 4,11,550 square metres of Polished Agglomerated Marble, without the floor price restriction imposed vide DGFT Notification No. 41 dated 18th September, 2008, with a direction to complete the imports within 15 months from the date of communication of the order. However, by the same order, the second request for allowing the import of the balance quantity of Processed Agglomerated Marble against Contract No. GM/SRL/AMS/1001 dated 27th August, 2007 has been rejected only on the ground that in the High Court order, no reference was made in relation to the Contract No. GM/SRL/AMS/1001 dated 27th August, 2007. 3. The reading of the impugned order makes it clear that the only ground sought to be used for rejection of the request in respect of another contract made by the petitioners is absolutely unsustainable in the eye of law. A senior officer holding the post 3 wp597610 of DGFT is expected to bear in mind that for each and every grievance, the citizen is not expected to approach the High Court. Once approach is made to the High Court by any litigant, and if a principle is laid down or the matter is decided, and/or the matter is remanded for consideration afresh, the Authority dealing with the matter is expected to decide all the similarly circumstanced issues on the settled principles of law, irrespective of the fact whether or not the litigant had approached the High Court or any other Court qua that particular issue. Merely because there is no reference or challenge to another similarly circumstanced issue before the High Court can hardly be a relevant consideration. Such an approach can only be an attempt to avoid consideration of issue on merits. 4. The petitioners had approached this Court vide Writ Petition No. 2120 of 2009. The said Writ Petition was decided by an order dated 6th April, 2010. The issue was considered, and the matter was remanded back to the Authority, indicating as to how the issue of grant of permission is to be considered. In respect of 4 wp597610 one item, permission is granted, whereas in respect of another, it is refused in the impugned order for the reason disclosed, which is clearly unsustainable in the eye of law. One fails to understand any rationale behind rejection of permission in respect of earlier Contract dated 27th August, 2007 and grant of permission in respect of later Contract dated 18th September, 2008. There cannot be two different yardsticks; one for grant of permission in respect of one and for rejection in respect of another, when both contracts are similarly circumstanced. The impugned order is clearly self-contradictory and perverse. 5. As a matter of fact, it was expected on the part of the DGFT to discuss the issue in detail, and record its legally sustainable reasons carving out reasonable classification adopting intelligible criteria with the object sought to be achieved, so as to reject the prayer made by the petitioners with respect to another contract. Merely because the petitioners have not approached the High Court in respect of another contract does not mean that they were not entitled to get their application considered on its 5 wp597610 own merits. Recently adopted litigation policy by the Central Government deprecates such decision-making process and attitude of avoidance on the part of the officers of the State, who are out to shirk their responsibility. 6. As a matter of fact, it has been repeatedly emphasized by this Court that consideration of the issues based on sound and sustainable reasons is a basic foundation and essential element of quasi-judicial order. Right to reason is, therefore, an indispensable part of the sound system of quasi-judicial or for that purpose even judicial administration. 7. In the above circumstances, the impugned order is set aside, being perverse and unsustainable in law. The application and the request made by the petitioners therein with respect to the second Contract bearing No. GM/SRL/AMS/1001 dated 27th August, 2007 is restored to the file of the DGFT with direction to consider the same on its own merits by reasoned order following 6 wp597610 principles of natural justice with expeditious despatch, at any rate within 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 8. The Petition, accordingly, stands allowed. The Rule is made absolute in terms of this order, with no order as to costs. (V.C. DAGA, J.) (R.M. SAVANT, J.)