By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, AUG 04, 2015: AN order passed by the High Court on 9th May 2014 directed the competent authority (DGFT) to decide the petitioner's application latest by 30th June 2014, in accordance with law.

The matter was to appear on 20th June 2014 for admission but did not come on board.

Presumably this was brought to notice of the High Court by the Petitioner and the fact that the competent authority had not taken a decision on the matter.

The High Court made the following caustic remarks -

+ That the matter has not appeared on board thereafter does not mean that this Court's direction is in anyway modified or diluted leave alone vacated or set aside.

+ No endeavour has been made to seek an extension and for passing an order or taking a decision in terms of the order of this Court referred above.

+ When this Court passes such orders and issues such directions it expects the competent authority to take a decision and which decision must be an order assigning reasons.

+ It is trite that no order of the Government can be said to be such and partaking the nature of a binding direction unless it is made in accordance with the business Rules and duly communicated.

+ No compliance is reported of this Court's order till date, save and except an oral explanation that the understanding of the authorities was that they are required to release some amounts.

+ That some amounts have been released or some concession extended, therefore the time was taken to comply is thus no explanation at all. Admittedly, there is no decision and in terms of this Court's directions.

Inviting the attention of all concerned to the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Subhash Singh AIR 1997 SC 1390, after extracting paragraphs therefrom, the High Court concluded thus -

"5. We do not countenance such state of affairs and particularly from the Directorate of Foreign Trade, the Director General of Foreign Trade or the Joint Director of Foreign Trade having his office at Mumbai. In the circumstances, we grant the time prayed but on the condition that the respondents shall pay costs, quantified at Rs.1 lakh within four weeks from today to the petitioner. We refrain from imposing personal costs. The respondent No.1 - Union of India / Central Government is free to recover the costs from either the then Director General of Foreign Trade or the Joint Director then functioning for the lapses on their part in complying with the orders and directions of this Court and thereafter creating difficulties for the Union of India/ Central Government."

The Writ Petition was disposed of.

(See 2015-TIOL-1750-HC-MUM-CUS)