IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2504 OF 1993 WRIT PETITION NO.2504 OF 1993 WRIT PETITION NO.2504 OF 1993 Jindal Dye Intermediate Ltd. ..Petitioner. V/s. Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.A.Y.Bookwala i/b. DSK Legal for petitioner. Mr.R.V.Desai, senior Advocate with H.V.Mehta and R.C.Master for respondents. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR AND CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR AND CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 18TH NOVEMBER, 2008 DATED : 18TH NOVEMBER, 2008 DATED : 18TH NOVEMBER, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. This petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in declining to grant cash payment on surrender of unutilized portion of the licences issued to the petitioner. According to the petitioner as per circular No.14/93 dated 13/9/93 they are entitled to the amount on surrender of the licences. 2. The petitioner by an application dated 11/6/1993 had sought premium on unutilised portion of advance licences issued to the petitioner. 3. By an order dated 22/10/1993 the Controller of Import & Export rejected the said application - = : 2 : = - solely on the ground that the aforesaid licences have been cancelled retrospectively by an order 14/10/1993. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that on the date on which the application for premium was made, the licence was valid and subsisting and, therefore, the refusal on the part of the authority to grant premium on surrender of unutilised portion of advance licence was illegal. 5. It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the petition, the order dated 14/10/1993 cancelling the licence retrospectively has been set aside by the appellate authority vide order dated 24/5/2004 and it is held that the licences shall stand cancelled prospectively from the date of cancellation. Petition has been accordingly amended by incorporating the aforesaid facts. 6. It is brought to our notice that the revenue has not filed any appeal against the order of the appellate authority cancelling the aforesaid licence prospectively and the petitioner has filed an appeal challenging the order of the appellate authority in cancelling the licences prospectively. 7. Thus, it is clear that in view of the order - = : 3 : = - passed by the appellate authority on 24/5/2004, the licences in question cannot be said to have been cancelled on the date on which the application for cash premium was made. In other words, the only reason given in the impugned order dated 22/10/1993 would not survive in view of the subsequent order dated 24/5/2004. 8. In this view of the matter, the order dated 22/10/2003 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Jt. D.G.F.T. to reconsider the application of the petitioner dated 11/6/1993 on its own merits and in accordance with law. Petitioner may file additional documents, if any, within a period of 4 weeks from today. Jt. D.G.F.T. is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for premium dated 11/6/1993 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. 10. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. - = : 4 : = - (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR J.)