IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1738 of 2008 M/S Aman Enterprises through its Proprietor Pahel Singh, S/o-Lotan Singh, Registered office at T-21/A, Khirkhi Extension, Police Station Malviya Nagar, Delhi. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Department of Commerce) Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110011. 2. Mr. R.S. Gujral, Directorate General of Foreign Trade Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Mr. Gobinda Chakrabarty, Deputy Director General, Directorate General of Foreign Trade Boscoman Bhawan, Police Station Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna. ----------- 03 13.05.2009 The petitioner had come to this Court challenging the order blacklisting him and cancelling his 38 Duty Free Replacement Credit Licences (DFRC Licences). His grounds were that on the basis of the same facts proceedings were taken up in other jurisdictions as well. Similar orders blacklisting and cancelling the licences were passed. Appeal was preferred to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority exercises jurisdiction over all those places where there was this dispute. The Appellate Authority held otherwise. The effect was that though in other jurisdictions the licences were revived. So far as Patna is concerned, they refused to take note of the appellate order and continued with the cancellation. Upon writ application, the Court found the cancellation was not sustainable in law. It was held that the DFRC Licences issued to petitioner from Patna were valid. Thus, it was settled that the petitioner was free to use those licences for the period they were valid. By this application, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that though the - 2 - authorities have seemingly sought to implement the order by withdrawing the cancellation order but they are not permitting the petitioner to utilize the fruits, therefore, because in their view the licences as issued at a period of validity of two years and while these litigations were going on the period expired. The effect is, even though, the cancellation orders are withdrawn. It is of no use because licences cannot be utilized unless they are issued afresh for the remainder of the term. In my view, learned counsel for the petitioner rightly submits that respondents are doing indirectly which they cannot do directly. The order of cancellation notification set aside. It was the bounden duty of the respondents to restore the licences for remainder of the period. Having not done so specifically, in my view, they have prima facie tried to avoid implementation of the order of this Court in true letter and spirit. The plea that the period of licence has expired cannot come in way for. It expired because of the wrongful act of the department in cancelling the licence, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. I, therefore, direct the department to issue fresh licence to the petitioner, if already not issued in lieu of 38 DFRC Licences for the remainder of the period of the original licences, taking into account the date of suspension up to the date of judgment. With these observations and directions, this application is stands disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)