@) TIIE HIGII CCIURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHT ClV No.653512ffi1& CM No.7l2l2J?ffi1 Judgment delivered on 04.09.2003 PEARL GLOBAL LIMITED I]NION OF INDIA & ORS. - versus - Advoutes who appeared in this case: For Petitioner :Mr A. Ir{aitri For Respondent No.4 :Mr Kuljeet Rawal CIDRAM:- f\ HON'BLE MR. JUSTI,CE BADAR DURREZ AHMED t' 1. a L. 3. t\! Whetlrer Reporterc of local paprs may be allowed / to see thejudgment? t/ To be referred to *re Reporter or not? "/ ,/ lVhether the judgment should be reported in Digest? v BADAR DURREZ AHMED. .I (ORAL) 1. In this writ petition, dre petitioner has sought for the quashing of the impugned order dated I4.O8.2ffiL passed by the Second Appellate Committee whereby the petitironer's claim that it was prcvented from meeting its revalidated quotaobligaion by virtue of Force Majeure conditions was rejected. 2. At the fitst insance. the petitioner was issued a show cause notice and a speaking order was passed by the AEPC (respondent no.4 herein) on 30.08.1996. It is pertinent to note that as per the Garment Export Entitlement Policy, the AEPC is not empowered to go into the question of Force Majeure conditions and it is onl_v to be taken up at the stage of First Appeal bdore the Textile C-ommissioner. Being aggrieved by the order of the AEPC dated 30.08.1996, the petitioner prefened the First Appeal before the Textile Commissioner which was disposed of by un order cw6$5nl Page no. I of4 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared the digital data is as per the physical file Signature Not Verified @ i\I dated 31.08.2m. It is an admined fact that the petitioner could not fulfil its export obligations. as a result of which the AEPC fodeited an amount of Rs11,88.6161- being the forfeiture amourt in terms of legal undertaking. 3. Under the Garment Export Entitlement Policy, a person who is unable to meet the export obligation, is entitled to the benefit of exemption from fodeiture if he is able to show that he was prevented fircm meetiog his export obligation by virnre of some rQarce Majeure condition. In this particular case, the petitioner pleaded that dre pficcess and delivery schedule of the garmeots were affeted due to disruption in tr"nsport of r:aw materials for the purpose of garments as well as low attendance of labour becauseof flmds durtng September/October 1995 and also that the buyers had refused to accept the late delivery. The only evidence that has been produced, if that can be called evidence at all, are the press clippings between the dates of 01.09.1995 and 09.09.1995 which indicate that in Norttrern India and. in particular'. in and around Delhi region there was a substantiat rainfall leading to a floodlike situation. The dates are important inasmuch as what is being urged in the pl'esent case is not with respect to the original quota obligation but in respect of the revalidated quota obligation which rnuld only arise after 01.10.1995. Apart firom the aforesaid newspaper clippings, no otlrer evidenee was produced before 0re authorities below. On the basis of tbe submissions made by the petitioner, the First Appellate Committee came to the onclusion that the circumstances as stated to exist did not constitute a Force fuIajeure condition and thereby the appeal was rejected. However. since the petitioner had-exported more tban'I5To of the overall quota of its obligation. as per the policy it was entitled to proportionate benefit insofar as forfeiture amount was concemed. 4. Being aggrieved by this order in appeal passed by the First Appellate ,TD C:W6535t01 Page no.2 of4 ;l Committee of the Textile Commissioner', the petitioner preferred a Second Appeal beforB tlre Second Appellate Committee. The Second Appellate Committee, afrer going through the papers and written submissions of the petitioner and after hearing the parties, i.e., representatives of the petitioner as well as of the AEPC, came to the conclusion that there was tro necessity for any interference with the otden of the First Appellate committee and ecordingly, they rejected the appeal. 5. Being aggrieved by the said rejection by the saond Appellate Committee on 14.08.2001. the petitioner has fited the present wdt petition. Two things are clear'. Firstly, this Coum, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under- Anicle 226 of the Constitution. does not sit as a Court of Appeal and is not required to see the evidence and come to a conclusion based on the evidence. All that is necessary to be seen is whether the decision malcing prucess is not faulty. It is also to be seen as to whether therc is any jurisdictional enor or an infirmity of such a nature as would amount to a perverse finding. In the present casq upon examination of the records, it is clear that such situations do not exist and, thetefore, no interfelence is called for. Secondly, it is to be noted that apart fi'om the Tewspaper clippings the petitioner. did not submit any evidence in support of its claim that it was preventod by Force Maieure r:onditions to me€t its export obligations. The petitioner did not submit any attend'nceregister nordid it submit the delivery receips or GRs as they are popular{y known, nor did it submit *, ***r*gical reports to show the effect of the rainfall in Delhi- A11 the units of the petitioner, I am informed by the learned oounsel for the petitioner, afe situated in and at'ound Dehi. Two of its units are io Nanaina and one is at Gurgmn- 6. Anothel point which is also to be noted and which was raised by Mr lfuljeet Rawal the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 was thar ( CW6535rOI Page no.3 of4 {;b {f' the original quda was, in aby event! to be fulfilled by 30.09.1995. The rains or the floods, which tre petitiorrer allege4 has ateady occurred on or Sout 01-09h September, 1995. Thercafter, the petitioner sought a revalidated quora which he could only seek after 01.10-1995. The revalidated quota was to be exported by 31.12.1995, subject to the conditions of legal undertalcing etc. In this petirion, we are concemed with the non-fulfilment of the export obligation under the revalidated quota Tbere is no evidenee produced by tlre petitioner to show any disruption in tmospolt facilities due to flmds or rains in the pertod beginning 01.10.1995 till 31.L2.L995. Thus, actnrding to learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.A in aoy evert, the petitioner has no case whatsoever. I am in agreement wittr the submissions of the leartred counsel forrespondent no.4. 4- In any event, no jutisdictional error or enpr in the decision making process has been pointed out and, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in exetcise of its writ jurtsdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition as well as the CM are dismissed. There shall beno orders as to costs. w BADAR DURREZAHMED JUDGE September 04,2003. sd * *CW 6 5 3 5. 0 l. sx w * *//f i n rl // {\ cw6$5nI Page no.4 of4