Satyabrata Sinha, J. - (1.) An application has been filed for clarification of this court's order dated 15th April, 1997. The fact of the matter is not in dispute. The first petitioner, which was a patnership firm, filed an application for grant of an advance licence to obtain purchase order from Messers International Pvt. Ltd. of Singapore for supply of 100% Malberry Raw Silk fabrics of specific designs, weight and size. For the purpose of this application, it is not necessary to state all the facts of the matter once over again. Suffice it to say that admittedly the petitioner applied for grant of the said licence, but the said application was rejected on the ground that one Shyam Sunder Saraswat, who was an erstwhile partner of the first petitioner did not reply to certain queries. It has been held in the aforementioned order dated 15th April, 1997 that at the relevant time, the said Shyam Sunder Swarswat was not a partner of the first petitioner and the requisite informations had been supplied to the concerned authorities. Keeping in view of the aforementioned fact, this court set aside the order impugned therein inter alia, on the ground that the same had been passed without considering the relevant facts and has been passed without taking into consideration irrelevant facts which were not germane for passing the said order. The impugned order, therefore, suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record and thus the licensing authority must be held to have acted wholly illegally and without jurisdiction. By reason of the said order, it was directed : "For the reasons aforementioned the impugned order dated 19.2.97 which is contained in Annexure 'K' and the order dated 10.3.1997 were set aside. The Joint Director-General of Foreign Trade is hereby directed to consider the matter afresh upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Such an order should be passed keeping in view the Exim Policy of the Central Government at an early date and preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid direction but without any order as to costs."
(2.) It is admitted that in the meantime, the Exim Policy of 1997 had come to an end and a new policy has been framed with effect from 1st April, 1997. The aforementioned fact was not brought to the notice of this court at the time of delivery of the judgment. It is also admitted that the concerned respondent had asked the petitioner to supply further value addition to the extent of 125% purported to be under the 1997-2000 Import & Export Policy.
(3.) Mr. S. Pal, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, inter alia, submits that although in terms of the said policy, the petitioner did not have any right to have a licence on the date of filing of the application, but he had a right to be considered thereto and the said right was a valuable right. Reliance was placed in this connection in AIR 1966 Supreme Court 478, 1992 SCC 428 and AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1650.;