- (1.) The Court : By this petitioner the petitioners prayed that the impugned order dated 28th September, 1995 passed by respondent number 5 be quashed and respondents be directed to return and deliver the advance licence number P/L/1523922 dated 15th February, 1993 alongwith original Customs copy and DEEC Book with balance CIF value of US $ 27, 20,533.25 to the petitioner and respondents be also directed to revalidate the aforesaid licence.
(2.) On this petition this court by order dated July 1, 1998 directed the respondents to handover the licence to the petitioner number 1 alongwith the DEEC Book to enable the said petitioner to present the same before the respondent number 4, being the Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce, for revalidation of the same and it was further directed the respondent number 4 either to revalidate the licence or to reject the same and such licence shall be returned by the petitioner to the respondent, Customs Collectorate without further delay. Against that order appeal was preferred before the Division Bench and Division Bench upheld the order of learned single Judge with a further direction that the petitioners shall abide by the order of the single Judge and if that order is modified or there is any variation in that order by the single Judge subsequently that direction shall also be abided by the petitioner No. 1.
(3.) The licence was handover to the petitioner number 1. He submitted it before the Director General of Foreign Trade. That licence was revalidated. Thereafter an application has been moved by the petitioner number 1 in this court statics that now the Customs Authorities no more require the licence and, therefore, it may not be necessary to return that licence to Customs Authorities. Customs Authorities confirmed this fact and the fact was also brought to the notice of this court that the period of licence will expire by 28th February, 1999 and thereafter it will only be a piece of paper with no value, if it is not used. If it was also an admitted case of respondent number 6 that though the un-utilised portion of the licence is to the tune of US $ 27,70,533 but respondent No. 6 has share in that licence to the tune of US $ 6,05,000. Therefore, the petitioners should not be allowed to use the entire unused licence.;