M/s G.N. Bros v. Union of India & Ors

2. /tL thc outsot counscrl for thc pctitioncl points out tirat noticc was issiieci iirnitcd to praycr (b) in thc w[it pctition. Pctitiorlcr sccks ar[1] orilcr c]f.lir.cction in tlic fbrnr or ccrtior.ari c.alli.g for lrrc rccorcrs pcrtairriLrg to [hc' clocision <latccl 26.08.2009 rctr<lerccl by thc i'csponclcnl No' 3 i'c' scconcl Appcllate (lommittc,: tiy rvlrich thc cicoision o{' thc };irst Appcliaic: Comrni'rtec was uphelcl..l.hc pctitionci also sccks quzrslring cl['tlrc tircier' c{atcci 07.t}g.2.0a[5] passccl by thc Appalcl Iixport Promotion (lo'"rncil' Ncvi Dolhi (NtPc) to tilrt-cit ihc carncsl tnoncl' dcpositccl Lry tlro pctititli-rcr iry cnczrsiritrg ttrc bank.guarautcc atnoltntitrg io I{s' 17,26,49|I-' 3..r"trc,cccss?.rf), racts ro bc noticcd rbr.<Jisposai oi-trris rvrit petition arc that thc pctitioncr. is statcd 1cl bc crrgaec<i in 1hc trr-rsit-tcss of cxports atr'd I'ugc I rtf ll -b*r r[7] r. /-*-,[1] I -/' \tersus I.JNJON OII INDIN & ORS 'i'hrough il;.P.(q 258/2010 2013:DHC:7140 Jrr TT irnports of rcadymade garrncnts from its factor:y a1" l;'T'-3' ['-lJlock' Ilari Nagar, Ncrv Ijclhi bcforc shifting ottt to Kundli, Ilaryana' on I2'11'1999' thc rcsponclcnt No.12 issucc{ a Notifrcation'No' Ill28l99 Iixports-I in r<.:spect of cxport of rcadymadc garrncnts alcl kpitwcar to [JS'A' Canada an<l liur.opean. union aucl laitl down thc policy for allotnrcnl of cntitlcmcnts fol thc ycars 2000-2004. In thc year 2004' lhc pctition'cr was allotlecl quota [b[1] gannents cxpotls undcr country-catcgory I;It6' 8' L5' 26,It,sl[6], 7, P'll[6] rurclcr the lrilst. Coinc lrirst Scrvcd otCIrS) Systcm' Thc allcrrrncnt was Valicl upto 3I.12.2004. on 09'01 '2004 in tortns of thc allotmcnt policy arrcl thc cluota, thc pctitiouer sttbnitlcd I]MD to the rcspondent No. 4 Lor Lhs valuc of thc quarrtity involvcd amounting to Its.24,05,000/-. 'fhis atlottttt was dcpositc<l irr thc Jcllm of a llank (itrarantcc datcd 09.01.2004lbr an atnount of Rs'23,65,000/- ancl a l"rDll arnounting to I1s.40,000/-. It is the case of thc petitioncr that in thc ycar 2004'thcrewasasharpclcclincinthcturnotlclolthcpelitiorrerr,vlrich|cll lrom I{s.l[5].5[l crorcs to Its.8.45 cforcs' Counsol submits that thc clccliuc in tl-rc turnovcr was printarillt on account of the lact that thc l)DA had hlecl a crirninal cornplaiut against thc pctitioncr and its DiTccror for carrying out its busincss frotn a lton-con{cltrning a1'ea' clounsel fcrr thc pctitioncr fgrthcr subrnits that i[1] thc rnonttrs clf N4ay and Jttttc' 2004' thc pctitioncr startcd shilting thc factory iioni lll'-3, l'-lllock, Ilari Nagar' Ncw Delhi to Kunclli, flaryana. I\4canwhilc, in July, 2004, a noticc rn'as roccivcd by thc pctil.ioncr lronr thc Mctropolitan Magistlatc' Ncrv l)cltri in a crirninai case institutcd by tirc I)DA against tirc pctitioncr and. its Dircctor. counscl I'urthcr sublrits tirat on accouttt of thc shi{ling of thc l'actory l}orn Dellii to Ilaryana, the workcrs of lhcr pctitioncr urent on strikc and thc activities of the factory calllo to a slati(lstill' lt is alscl sr-rbi,itted thal somc c.,l'thc r.vor-kcrs lcil tlrc sc'vicc o['thc pr:titio*cr rvhiiO H;.P.(() 258/20t0 l'a{e 2 tti'tt hl \ LK solne raisccl a labour disptrte. In thc proccecling initiatcd by the DDA, thc pctitioner plcaclccl guilty bcfor'c thc Mctropolitan Magistrate, Nc'uv Deltri orr 23.07.2004 ancl paicl a fine of Rs.2,000/- on 11.08.2004. On account of thc shillirrg of thc factory, the petitioncr could 1ot carry ottt cxport within thc tiffrc allowccl, rcsuhantly on 19.05.20A[5], a show causc noticc was issuccl by thc respondent No.2 callilg tlpoll thc pctitiotLct'to explail as to why thc tiMD tbr an anrount o[1]. Rs.20,87,31-41- shclr'rld not bc forfcitcd owing to non-fullllltnent of thc terrns and con'ditions of thc cluota allotmcnt. Ilcing dissatisficcl with thc responsc to t|c sl1ow causc noticc, on 07.09.2005, a spcaking orcler was passccl to forfcit a sllln of Rs.20,67,3141-. on26.09.2005, against thc aforcsaid spcaking orclcr, an appeal was filcd to thc liirst Appcllate Cornruittee which was disrrissccl. Anolbcl appcal to thc Secorrcl Appellate Cornmittec was also dismisscd which led to the liling of the writ petition in this Court being W.p. (C) No' 703812007' 'Ihc albrcsai<l wfit petition was disposcd of by an ordcr daled 24'09'2AW by which trrc casc of thc pctitioncr was l.cmancrcd back to thc First Appcllatc C'ornmit-tcc grantilg lcave to tbc pctitioncr to placc acldjtional doculrents ol-t rccorcl which the pctitioler could not placc at thc first instance availablc. 06 thc matlcr bcing rcmandcd back to thc liirst Appcilatc Cornmitlcc, thc tcsult rcmaine<l unchanged ancl an appcal to thc Socond Appcllatc Comrnittcc mct with thc sarnc fatc ufiich has lcci to thc hling of thc prcscnt rvrit Petition. Lcarncd counscl for thc petitioncr subrnits that the pctitioncl could not fulllll the ternrs of the cluota on account oI cUrcctions c-r[thc Apcx clourt in thc casc of 'M.c. l\,{chta rr. ljniotr of lnclia & ors.' b,v r'vhich a bJanl<ct or.dcr was passecl for shitling of all industries fi'otn tlon-corllornring arcas and thc SDM of the concerncd area was clirectcd to cnlorcc tlrc ordcr" It I'u[1];e 3 of'3

4. E>a

5. tv.P.(q 2s8/2010 _--^J -- --t r[1] was also dirccted that the.*,atcr and clectricity to the said factofics was to bc <iisco'ncctcd. IIc furthcr submits that whcn thc pctitioncr cotnrlcncsd shifting o['thc lactory {}opr Delhi to IIaryana, solnc of thc workcls of the pctitior.Lcr.wentonstrikcandatrinclustrialclisputcwasraiscclwhilctlre rcst oJ, thc workcrs lcft thc cmploytncnt clf the pctitioncr which rnade it virtlaily irnpossiblc for thc pctitioncr to oat'ry tlttt thc exporl conlllritmcnts. It is conlcndccl that thcsc l-actors wcfc bcyoncl thc control oJ. thc pctitioncr antJ thus thc casc of the petitionel cannot bc cquatcd to such cxporlcrs rvho had not carried out thc cxport obligation for extrancous rcasons lvhcrcas thc pctitioncr was uiratrlc to camy out thc cxport oI goocls duc to tirc forcc-majcurc atrct 1'hus thc actiori o['thc rc.sponclcnt is tlnrcasotrablc, arbitrary and Jiable Lo bc sct-aside' Coulsel llrther contends that the pctitioner had maclc gcnuinc altcinpts and cven dcspitc iris best intcntiorrs ancl cf|ot1s, thc cxport cotrtd rrot be carricd ottt. (;. 'fhc prcscnt pctition is opposcd by lcarnccl counscl for AllI'}C primarit-v oil thc gr.urcl that thcrc is no inlirrniry or illcgality irr thc ot'clcr passcr'j by'ihc SccondAppellatcCornrnittccancltlrcrcistlogroundlbrjudicialrc'u.icwof rhc arforcsaicl ordcr. It is also contcndcd that thc pctitioncr did not shift his factory lt'orn non-confolning arca in prtrsuant to thc order.passcd by thc suprcrnc couil of India clatc<l 07.05.2004 but on accclttnt ol a cotnplaint r.vhichr.vasmadcbythcl;icldstafl'oI'thcDDAttudcrscction14r/w 2g(2) of thc Dclhi I)evclopructrt Act, lg57 on 28'06'2002, a copy of this cornplaint has bcen placcd on rcccrrcl' Counscl ftrrthct' submits that pursuanr to the cornplaint filccl by thc DDA, noticc rvets issuccl to thc pctitiorrcrbytlreMetr.opolitaniViagistratc,Ncwl)cllriandthcpctitioncr wasloundguilty'.flrcpctitiotrcrclcpositc'<jtrtitrcronll'08.2004.Itisthus contcndccl ttrat thc pctitiolcr was rvell aWbrc about thc pcndcncy of proccccli'gs againsi h;n] witir rcgald to czirrying oirt 6r'tsiness actrvtttes t' tv.P.(() 2s8/2010 l'cge 4 oJ 3

7. a llon-confolning arca aud pctitioncr was aware of thc oonscqtlcnccs ol' thc albresaid complaint and dospitc thc said complaint, thc pctitioucr was aclventurous cnough to scck quota's in thc ycat 2004 aud knowing lully wclt tliat thc vali<lity of thc cluota was betwccn thc mouths of Malch and l)cscrnbcr, 2A04. It js thus contcn<lecj that thc pctitior"rcr had takcn a calculated risk i' thc rnattcr and it cannot be saicl that thc pctitioner could not cxpor-L on accoullt oI lbrcc majeure conditiOnS. I rrave hcard counscl for trrc partics a*cl consiclercd the.i' rival subrnissions. 'lhc petitioncr is a cornpany lcgistcrcd ttndcl thc Indian Cornpanies Act, 1956 and is statcd to bc engagcd in the business of Iixports ancl Imports of reaclyrna<le gat'mcnts. lnitialty thc pctitioner was working lrom his firctory at Flari Nagar, Dclhi subscclucntly thc pctitioner shiftod <rut to l(undli, Ilaryana. In thc ycar 20C4' at thc reclucst of the pctitioncr, hc was allottccl cluota for galncr1t lixptlr-t undcr Country -' Category lil{ 6, 8, 15, 26!;,sl 6,7I]'116 undcr thc first colllc lltst scivecl systern. 'fhe said aliotrnc't was valid upto 31" I)ccetnbcr, 2004' Ilascd on thc tcrms of thc allotrncnl policy and thc quota on 09'01'2004 thc pctitioncr. subrnittccl JiMD to lespondcnt no.4 for thc valtrc of tlrc quanl'ity involvcd atnounting to I1s.24,05,000/-. 'I'his arnount was dcpclsitcd in thc lbrm of a bank guerantcc.datcd 09.01.2004 Jbr an iltngunt of 1ts.23,65,000/- and an ltDlt amounting to Rs.40,000/-' As the pctitioncr coulcl not cornply with thc terms <lf thc allotmcnl policy and did not carry out thc cxport within 75 days oi thc allotrncnt. A show callsc noticc was issucci to thc pctitioncr by rcspondcnt no'4, calling Llpon thc pef itionct'tcl cxplain as to why thc ItMI) for an atnount oi I{s'20,87,3141- should not bc forfcitccl owi'g to the non-firltihncnt of tcrns arrd conditions of the quota allotrnent. on 07.09.2004.lhc respotrclcnt tlcl.[4] qassccl a spcaking oldcr { CI H,-t.(() 258/2010 l'tt[1];c S rf I L A\ and a forfeiture was itnposcd to thc extent of I{s.20,67,3141- and appeal hlcci agailst thc aforcsaid ordcr was aiso dismisscd. Aggricvccl by thc clccision clatcd 26.08.2009'of thc Second Appellatc Cgrnrnittcc which uphcld thc linding of thc Irirst Appellatc Comrnittcc clatcd 21. 10.200g has lcd to the tiling of thc prcscnt writ pctition. Counscl for thc pctitioncr has argnccl bcfiore this court that 1hr: cxport could noL bc carriccl out as per: the terms of the policy for rcasons bcyond his control' Cor-rnscl lbr the pctitioncl' submits that thcrc has to be a distinction bctwccn cxporters, who do trot willfully cxports the goods cln time and thosc, who arc r-rnablc to exporl the goods duc to rcasons of forcc majcurc ancl thus the forfeiturc is totally unrcasonablc, unjust and unfair. 'l'hc rcasons cxplaincd by counscl for thc petitioncr for not cxporting tl'rc gclocls on tinc arc thal the petitioncf was prcvcptcd from shippilg tirc goods on accounl of shifting/ rc-aliocation of its factory aud consccluent strike, agitatiols by its workct's, who clid not want to go to the placc whcrc the factory rvas lc-localcd. ln ground (d) of thc writ petition, it has bccu statcd that thc workers hacl stopped rcporting for duty as thc pctitioncr had to shifl f1orn factory ftot[1] Dclhi in cornpliance with thc ordcrs of thc I-Ion'blc Supreme Cottrt, rvhich faotor was ignorcd by the rcspondc;nts whilc passing thc ilrpugncd ordcrs. It is statcd that dcspitc bcst cllbrts to rnal<e altqnatc alTangctllcnt, thc pctitioncr could not carry out thc cxporl. It has also becn statcd in thc writ pctition tlraL there was a drarp decline in t6c turn-ovcr of thc pctitioncr on account of DDA having hled a crirninal casc against the pctitioner and his dircctors and pulstrant tho'cto the pctitioncr startcd shilting its lactory fi'orn l]ari Nagar to Kundli, llaryana irr thc rnonth of May - Junc, 2004 itsclf. In July, 200/+ ihc pcrtitiorrei rcccivccl a notice fr'otn the Melropolitan Magistrate, in rcspcct of a crirninal case institutcil by the Di)A. _j tv.P.((') 2s8/2010 Puge b oi'8 \; _?g. On carcful pcr:usal of thc clocurnents placccl on t'ocorcl, thct'c is no room Ibr cloubt that when thc pctitioncr appliccl lbr quota, a show catrsc ttoticc haci alrcacly been issued by the DDA to the petitioner. 'l.hc pctitioncr had initially contested the matter beforc thc Mctropolitan l\'Iagistralc, horvcvcr, hc picaclccl guilty on[2].3.7.2004 and paid a finc of lts'2,000/- on I[1].tt.2004. l'hc clocrrments placccl on recorcl show that thc prcrniscs clf the petirioncr \yerc inspecteci by thc ticld stafl oI thc I)Dz\ on 10'5.2003 and thc f,iclct staff hacl F,rrthcr rcpor.ted that 1hc pctititlncr has put thc building to a ncln-confoilning Llse, as tirc building lalls in Tonc (iovc'rnrncnt -B and can bc ttscd only for thc rcsiclcltial purposcs acoording to thc N{astcr Plan Dclhi l:lonal Plan. 'I'hc cornplaint htecl by tbe I)DA before the Mctropolitan Magistlatc clcarly shows that thc ptotniscs of thc pctitioncr wcrc inspcctcd in May, 2003 prior to tho pctitioncr making an applicatiori' for gr.ant of euota. 'flre orcJer passcd by thc Suprcmc Oourt rcfcrtctd l"o by ccrunscl lor thc pctitioncr in thc c,ase of M'c. M.chta, is of 7'5'2004 atd thc or.dcr passccl b[1], the SDM is o[ 6. 12.2004. 'fhc subrnissions of counsel for t5c pctitioncr that hc coul<l not" carry out cxport lbr lcasons bcyc''nd iris contr.l arc rvithoul any forcc as the juclgrncnt of thc SLtprctnc (jottrt dated 7.5.2004 was solrglit to bc cnforcc<l by ttre SI)M of tlrc arca by au orclcr 6.12.2904, whcreas adrnittcclll'ttrc expclrl r'vas to bc carricd out by thc pctitioncr by 31.12.2004. 'fhe pciitioncr has ccrtainly takcn a calculatcd risk, wtrilc making an application for graut of quoter.

10. I havc carclully pclusccl ilrc orc]cr of thc first Appellatc Comrnittce datcd 2i.10.2008 passccl by the scnior olficcrs Appcllalc commitlcc and thc crrcler clatcd 26.8.200t) of the Scconcl Appcllalc Committcc- 'l'hcrc is ncr illcgality in th.c ordcrs passctl. nor thc atithoritics havc crcccdccl thcir jur.isclicl.ion a1d thcrc is no ciror apparent onthc lacc of the 1cco1d or any crror of [au, u,hich requircs intcrfcrcncc by ihis cdurt. i'hc jtrrisdiction "', tt'r H/.t'.(() 2-18/2010 I'ugc 7 qi 3 >/.IANIJA|IY 17,'2013 rs/ssn F> vested in this court is to bc cxerciscd sparingl[1], and in appropriatc cat;es. Accordingly, since there is no infir:mity in thc dccisions datcd 21.10.2008 passed by the Senior Ofl-rr:crs Appcllatc Cornmittcc and thc ordcr datcd 2(r.8.2009 of thc Sccond Appellate Cornurittcc, thc writ pctiLion and thc applioation arc acoordirrgly, disrnisscd. 1} vt/.P.(() 2s8/2010 l'uge- S ti il