RAJESH BALIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner challenges the communication dt. 31st March, 1986 (Annexure -P) by which he was informed that earlier certificate issued to him regarding the investment of plant and machinery for manufacture of tyres for the purposes of Notification No. 88/84 -CE dt. 4.8.1984 has been cancelled and the petitioner was required to furnish a fresh certificate by 15th Feb., 1986 either from Directorate General of Technical Development (for short 'D.G.T.D.') or from I.D.B.I. as required in the aforesaid notification, failing which the petitioner was threatened with withdrawal of the relief granted under notification No. 88/84 -CE by dint of the aforesaid certificate. The contention of the petitioner is that he has never been communicated any order of cancellation of certificate issue to D.G.T.D. on 21st July, 1984 and if there is any order of cancellation, he has still not been served with it inasmuch as to his knowledge no proceedings for cancelling the certificate were taken against him.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents urged that Annexure -L dt. 11.2.1985 is the communication by which the petitioner was required to furnish' certain informations failing which the aforesaid certificate was to be treated as cancelled. Since the petitioner has not supplied with such information that order operates as cancellation of the certificate. It is not in dispute that apart from Annexure -L dt. 11.2.1985, no other order cancelling the certificate exists or communicated to the petitioner.;