Soumitra Pal, J. - (1.) JESSOP & Co. limited is the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.2 is its principal officer. The petitioner No. 1 (for short 'the petitioner') was previously a Government of India Undertaking and after the process of disinvestment it is now controlled by its management. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of E.M.U coaches, wagons, heavy cranes, etc. and in course of its business undertakes both import and export activities. For the purpose of such activity on 20th June, 1990 the petitioner was allotted an Import -Export Code bearing No.0290000211 (for short "I.E.C."). In the usual course of business the petitioner is required to import components and parts for E.M.U. coaches, cranes, wagons etc. At present a consignment of hydraulic cylinder is lying at the Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport which is required for the manufacture of a crane at the Bokaro Steel Plant of the Steel Authority of India Limited. On 22nd February, 2009 the said consignment arrived at the airport. The agent of the petitioner filed necessary documents with the customs authorities for its release. On 23rd/24th February, 2009 the agent of the petitioner informed the petitioner that I.E.C. of the petitioner had been suspended by the respondent authorities. Since due to non -release of the goods the petitioner was severely prejudiced and as the particulars could not be provided by the agent. In the first week of March, 2009 the petitioner made enquiries with the authorities, but without any effect. On 18th March, 2009 a letter demanding justice was issued, but it went unheeded. Aggrieved, the writ petition was filed.
(2.) THE matter was moved on 23rd March, 2009 when directions were issued for filing of affidavits. Affidavits have since been exchanged and are J on record. Learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner reiterating the statements made in the writ petition submitted that no order of suspension was furnished. The petitioner came to know about the suspension from the certificate proceedings and were not aware of the contents in paragraph 3 of the order in original since it was sent to a wrong address. Allegation is as no opportunity to make representation in any form was given to the petitioner prior to the suspension of I.E.C., there was an utter violation of the provisions of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (for short "the Act") and violation of natural justice. Since suspension of I.E.C. is discretionary as evident from the word 'may' appearing in section 11(4) and has civil consequences, before passing the order of suspension, the respondents should have adhered to the principles of natural justice and fair play which are inherent by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to represent in any manner which is not a useless formality. Where order of suspension under section 11(4) of the Act is passed, the conditions stipulated in section 8 of the Act are required to be followed. Since order of suspension has civil consequences, the provisions contained in section 8 has to be read into section 11(4). Reliance was placed on the following judgments in support of his contentions which are as under: 1. M/s. Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Anr., : AIR 1975 SC 266 2. C.B. Gautam v. Union of India & Ors., : (1993) 1 SCC 78 3. M/s. Southern Painters v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & Anr., : AIR 1994 SC 1277
(3.) CANARA Bank & Ors. v. Shri Debasis Das & Ors., : AIR 2003 SC 2041;