Judgment:
Somasundaram, J.
1. These Writ Appeals have been filed against the common order made in WP. Nos. 4683/84 and 10162/84 allowing both the writ petitions (printed infra). The respondent herein has filed WP. No. 4683/84 for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the appellants herein to issue an additional import licence to the extent of Rs. 28,27,770/- for the year 79-80 and Rs. 24,15,305/- for the year 1980-81. WP. No. 10162/84 was filed by the petitioner praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 22.9.1984 cancelling the Export House Certificate dated 1.5.80 granted in favour of the respondent.
2. The respondent, a private limited company is a manufacturer of finished leather, leather garments and leather goods. The respondent also exports finished leather and leather goods manufactured by it as well as leather goods purchased by it from other manufacturers. Under the Import Policy of the Government of India for the period April 1979 to March 1980, a person who wants to get an Export House Certificate shall submit an application to the Chief Controller of Imports & Exports. Paragraphs 1 and 4 of the said Import Policy statement refers the conditions which are required to be fulfilled for grant of such an Export House Certificate. The respondent applied for such an Export House Certificate for the year 1979-80 on 28.5.79. An Export House Certificate was issued to the respondent on 1.5.80, which was valid from 1.5.1980 to 30.6.1980. Again, on 28.6.1980, the petitioner applied for An Export House Certificate under the Import Policy for the year 1980-81. An Export House Certificate was given on 26.3.1981 for the period from 1.7.1980 to 30.6.1983. The grant of Export House Certificate confers certain privileges on the person in whose favour such Export House Certificate is granted. One such privilege is the right to obtain an Additional Import Licence. On the basis of the Export House Certificate given to the respondent, it applied for an additional import licence against the export of finished leather and leather products. When the application for the grant of additional import licence was pending, the first appellant issued a show-cause notice dated 29.5.82 to the respondent requiring it to show cause why action should not be taken on the ground that the export house certificate had been obtained by respondent by mis-representation. By the said show-cause notice, the respondent was also required to surrender the additional licence which were granted for the earlier years along with the other benefits obtained against the Export House Certificate. Along with the show cause notice, 'the statement of others' during 1978-79 which gave the particulars of names, addresses and the value of the goods purchased by the respondent from other firms on the basis of which the Export House Certificate was issued, were also enclosed. It contained the names of 29 firms. The show-cause notice stated that on examination, out of 29 firms only 4 units had confirmed that they had supplied finished leathers to the respondent and the letters sent to 4 other firms were received back undelivered and the remaining 21 units informed the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports who was asked to verify the same, that they had not supplied finished leather to the respondent-firm. The respondent submitted reply to the show cause notice on 20.7.1982 and in the reply, the respondent submitted that its earlier statement that they had exported goods manufactured by it as well as the goods purchased from other manufacturers was correct. In the reply to the show-cause notice dated 29.5.1982 had not given the details or the names of firms who had confirmed and those who had not confirmed the sales of finished leather goods to the respondent, in order to enable to respondent-firm to submit its explanation in that regard (sic). The respondent also in the reply to the show-cause notice specifically denied that it had made any mis-representation. By the order dated 22.9.1984, the Export House Certificate granted in favour of the respondent-firm was cancelled and the respondent was required to surrender the certificate and all other benefits including the additional licenses obtained, if any, against the said certificate. In the meantime, inasmuch as the respondent's application for grant of additional import licence for the year 1980-81 had not been considered on merits, the respondent filed WP.No. 4683 of 84 praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus for directing the appellants to issue an additional Import Licence to the extent of Rs. 28,27,770/- for the year 1979-80 and Rs. 24,15,305/- for the year 1980-81. When the Export House Certificate itself was cancelled on 22.9.84 during the pendency of W.P.4683/84, the respondent herein aggrieved by the order dated 22.9.1984, filed W.P.10162/84 for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 22.9.1984 cancelling the Export House Certificate.
3. It was contended on behalf of the respondent, before the learned single Judge, that the order dated 22.9.84 is vitiated on the ground that it was made in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was further urged before the learned single Judge that though the show-cause notice dated 29.5.1982 was issued informing the respondent that 4 of the firms out of the 29 firms alone confirmed the supply of finished leather goods to the respondent and the 21 others did not confirm the sale of finished leather goods to the respondent and the letters sent to four other firms were returned unserved, in the said show-cause notice the details of such firm were not given in order to enable the respondent to submit an effective explanation to the show cause notice. It was also contended before the learned single Judge that the order dated 22.9.84 is a non-speaking order and on that ground also it is liable to be quashed. The learned single Judge took the view that the respondent had not been supplied with the necessary particulars pointed out by the respondent in the reply to the show-cause notice in order to enable it to make an effective representation. The learned single Judge, also found that the order dated 22.9.1984 must be treated as a non-speaking order in form and that Ihe order dated 22.9.1984 cancelling the Export House Certificate granted in favour of the respondent is invalid on the ground that it is violative of the principles of natural justice. As a result, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition 10162/84 and set aside the order dated 22.9.1983. Inasmuch as the result of W.P. No. 4683/84 depended on the result of W.P.10162 of 1984, the learned single Judge also allowed W.P.4683/84 and directed the appellants to issue the additional import license as prayed for by the respondent in W.P.No. 4683/84. Writ Appeal 122/89 is directed against the order in W.P.4683/84 and Writ Appeal 123/89 is directed against the order in W.P.No. 10162/84.
4. Mr. A.P. Suryaprakasam, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that before passing the order dated 22.9.1984, which is challenged in W.P.No. 10162/84, show-cause notice was given to the respondent; that the respondent also submitted his reply to the show-cause notice; that the respondent was also given a personal hearing before the order dated 22.9.1984 was passed; that the order dated 22.9.84 was passed after taking into consideration the representations made by the respondent in his reply to the show-cause notice; and that therefore, the order dated 22.9.1984 is not violative of the principles of natural justice. The learned Counsel further contended that the order dated 22.9.84 says that inasmuch as the Export House Certificate was obtained by mis-representation it was cancelled and therefore, it cannot be said that the said order is not a speaking order. The learned Counsel for the appellants also submitted that even assuming that the order dated 22.9.84 is not a speaking order and is violative of the principles of natural justice, the learned single Judge instead of straightaway allowing the writ petition, ought to have remanded the matter to the appellants for fresh disposal according to law. We are unable to accept the above contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellants. The materials on record would go to show that a show-cause notice was issued to the respondent on 29.5.1982 informing them that 4 of the firms alone confirmed that they supplied finished leather goods to the respondent, that 21 other firms did not confirm the sale of such finished leather goods to the respondent and that the letters sent to 4 other firms were returned unserved. However, the show-cause notice dated 293.1982 does not mention which of the 4 units had confirmed the supply of finished leather goods to the respondent and which of the firms were 21 units which had denied selling any finished leather goods to the respondent. In para 12 of the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No. 10162/84, it is specifically averred by the respondent herein that even at the time of personal hearing Shri V.S. Rawat, on the basis of the files before him, could not specify which were the 4 units which confirmed the supply of finished goods to the respondents and which were the other 21 firms which denied selling any finished leather goods to the respondent. The said specific'averments in para-12 of the affidavit have not been denied by the appellants herein by filing a counter affidavit in W.P.10162/84. Further there is no reference to the said averments even in the counter affidavit filed in the other writ petition W.P.No. 4683 of 1984. In the above circumstances, the learned single Judge rightly countenanced the plea of the respondent herein that it was not supplied with relevant particulars in the show-cause notice dated 29.5.1982, viz., the details regarding the 4 firms which confirmed the sale of finished leather goods to the respondent and the 21 other firms which did not confirm the sale of such goods to the respondent, to enable it to make effective representation and therefore, the order dated 22.9.1984 challenged in W.P.No. 10162/84 is violative of the principles of natural justice and is iable to be set aside.
5. Now, let us examine the question whether the order dated 22.9.84 cancelling the Export House certificate granted in favour of the respondent is bad on the ground that it is not a speaking order. The order dated 22.9.84 reads thus:
Gentlemen,
With reference to the correspondence resting without your letter dated 24.7.1984 on the above subject, I write to say that your case has been considered carefully and it has been decided to cancel your Export House Certificate No. l4/61/79-EP.III/179 dated 1.5.1980 as the same was obtained by misrepresentation. As a such your above Export House Certificate is hereby cancelled.
2. You are, therefore, advised to surrender the Export House Certificate and all other benefits including additional licences; obtained if any, against the said Export House Certificate.
Yours faithfully,
(S. KAK)
Export Commissioner.
The order merely states that it has been decided to cancel the Export House Certificate granted in favour of the respondent dated 1.5.80 as the same was obtained by misrepresentation. The said order contains only the conclusion. No reason whatsoever is given in the said order for arriving at the conclusion that the Export House Certificate dated 1.5.80 had been obtained by misrepresentation. It also does not disclose the materials on the basis of which such a conclusion was arrived at. After perusing the relevant file, the learned Single Judge has also found that there is no discussion in the file relating to the question whether the goods exported by the respondent were finished goods or unfinished goods which are not eligible for the Export House Certificate. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the order dated 22.9.1984 does not make it clear as to whether the cancellation of the Export House Certificate was on the ground of misrepresentation relating to the statement of firms from which the respondent purchased the goods and exported them or in relation to the nature of the goods that were exported and on that account the order dated 22.9.84 could be treated as a non-speaking order in form. Further, we have to point out, in this context that no counter-affidavit has been filed in WP.10162/84 explaining the basis on which the appellants arrived at the conclusion that the Export House Certificate was obtained by misrepresentation whether on the ground of misrepresentation relating [to] the firms from which the respondent purchased the goods or on the ground of misrepresentation relating to the nature of the goods which were exported. In these circumstances, we are fully satisfied that the order dated 22.9.84 is invalid and liable to be set aside on the ground that it does not disclose the materials on the basis of which the conclusion that the Export House Certificate was obtained by misrepresentation was arrived at and also on the ground that the said order is violative of the principles of natural justice.
6. Again, we must point out that in para-19(f) of the affidavit filed in support of WP.10162/84, it is specifically stated that the cancellation of the Export House Certificate during the pendency of WP.4683/84 had been made with an ulterior purpose, viz., to defeat the claim of the respondent herein for an additional licence which is the subject matter of WP.4683/84 and thereby the respondent herein has suggested the lack of bona fides on the part of the appellants in the cancellation of the Export House Certificate. The specific allegation in para 19(f) of the affidavit has not been challenged by the appellants herein by filing a counter affidavit in WP. No. 10162/84. Further, even in the counter affidavit filed in WP.4683/84, the above allegation has not been traversed even though at the time of filing the counter affidavit in WP.4683/84 the other writ petition WP.No. 10162/84 was also pending. In these circumstances, we cannot also ignore the averments in para 19(f) of the affidavit filed in support of WP.10162/84 which remain unrebutted.
7. Further, it is common ground that the stay petitions C.M.P. Nos.972 & 973/89 in the present writ appeals were dismissed on 22.3.1989 and the appellants in compliance with the writ of mandamus issued by the learned single Judge have also issued an additional import licence to the respondent on 13.4.89. It is also admitted that the respondent has also utilised the said additional license issued on 13.4.1989. In these circumstances, we are inclined to hold that nothing further survives in these writ appeals.
8. In view of the above discussion of ours, we do not find any merit in these writ appeals and they are liable to be dismissed Accordingly, these writ appeals are dismissed. No costs.