IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No 867 of 2010 1. M/S AMAN ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS PROPRITER PAHEL SINGH S/O LOTAN SINGH REGISTERED OFFICE AT T-21/A KHIRKHI EXTENSION ,P.S- MALVIYA NAGAR, DELHI. Versus 1. ARUN RAMANATHAN THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE ( DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ) UDYOG BHAWAN, NEW DELHI - 110011 2. MR. R.S. GUGRIL DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE UDYOG BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 3. GOBINDA CHAKRABARTY S/O LATE MOTI LAL CHAKRABARTY DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE BISCOMAN BHAWAN, P.S-GANDHI MAIDAN , DISTRICT- PATNA *** For the petitioner : Mr Sanjeev Ranjan, Advocate For Union of India : Mr M K Rai & Ms Kalpana, CGC *** 3 21.07.2010 By judgment and order dated 07.02.2008, CWJC No 4710 of 2007 was disposed of holding that the 38 Duty Free Replacement Credit (DFRC) licences granted to the petitioner from Patna were valid and validly granted. Thus, the petitioner became entitled to utilise the benefits under the said 38 DFRC licences. The petitioner brings to the notice of this Court that out of the 38 licences, 17 have been restored to the petitioner leaving 21. In respect of 21 licences, petitioner informed the authorities that they had been lost/misplaced. Even though it was expected to the authorities to immediately revert to the petitioner informing him the procedure to get duplicate copies issued, they kept mum forcing the petitioner to come to this Court in this regard. A show cause has been filed stating that DFRC licences are transferable and, as such, statutory compliance of Clauses 2.14 and 2.15 of the Handbook of 2 Procedures of Rules, Volume I, 2004-2009 has to be complied with. Without going into various controversies, I direct opposite party No 3 and the petitioner or his representative to sit down tomorrow (22.07.2010) in the office of opposite party No 3 – Deputy Director General and sort out the matter. Any information that is required by the petitioner would be furnished from the records of the Deputy Director General like licence number, transferability etc to facilitate the petitioner in complying with the provisions of Clauses 2.14 and 2.15. It may be noted that requirements are different so far as transferable and non- transferable licences are concerned. It is expected that an officer of the rank of Deputy Director General would have a cooperative attitude in the matter to ensure that full benefit, which was otherwise available to the petitioner, is restored to him for all intents and purposes. Bureaucratic approach should be avoided to deny legitimate benefit to the petitioner. In the hope that the fruits and benefits of judgment of this Court are restored to the petitioner at the earliest, this application is disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)