ORDER
K.J. Sengupta, J.
1. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :
'(a) A writ of or in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent and, in particular, Respondent No. 2, to rescind, recall and cancel the said order dated 25-3-1996 passed by the respondent No. 2 being Annexure 'I'.
(b) Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to rescind, recall or cancel the memo No. NIL dated 12-11-1992 issued by the respondent No. 2 and also directing the respondent not to act or further act upon the same.
(c) A writ in the nature of certiorari directing the respondent to certify and transit to this Hon'ble Court records and recordings in respect of proposal for grant of SSI registration certificate to your petitioner for manufacture of colour TV by the petitioner No. 2 as a Small Scale Industrial Unit including in particular, the notice dated 12-11-1992 and order dated 25-3-1996 so that the same may be quashed and appropriate order and/or direction may be issued by this Hon'ble Court and considerable justice may be done to the parties.
(d) Rule Nisi in terms of prayer (a), (b) and (c) above.
(e) declaration that your petitioner No. 2 was and is a registered Small Scale Industrial Unit authorised to manufacture and sell colour TV during 1986 to 1989.
(f) Interim order directing the respondents to grant provisional registration certificate in respect of manufacture of colour TV for the relevant period.
(g) Such further or other writ or writs, order and orders as may be deemed just or expedient.'
2. The facts of this case while putting in narrow compass, is as follows :--
On or about 7th Sept. 1981 the petitioners set up Small Scale Industry for manufacturing and sale of different electrical electronic equipments and articles like radio, voltage stabilizer, booster, push button telephone dialer, black and white TV at No. E-161, V.I.P. Road, Ultadanga, Calcutta-54. This unit was set up as claimed by the petitioners in response to assurance/promise by the State Government to entreprenaurs to provide various financial concessions and subsidies, including power subsidy and also relief from sales tax and other taxes. Accordingly, on 14th Oct. 1982 the petitioners got permanent registration of the above unit as a Small Scale Industry granted by Directorate of Cottage and Small Scale Industries, Government of West Bengal for manufacturing and sale of audio cassette, tape recorder and push button telephone dialer.
3. It appears that from time to time the petitioners got other two items viz., voltage stabilizer and black and white TV included in the permanent registration. As such the permanent registration was amended .
4. The petitioners, thereafter, itis claimed, made arrangement for manufacturing of colour TV in 1985, so applied for inclusion of the item colour TV in their permanent registration certificate. So, an application to that effect was made on or about 20th July, 1985. It is claimed that in anticipation that the aforesaid item of colour TV would be included in the permanent registration, the petitioners went on manufacturing colour TV from 1986 to 1988 and sold it in the market without realising any sales tax from the customers. It is claimed further that pursu-ant to the aforesaid application for inclusion of item colour TV in the permanent registration the concerned department made necessary enquiries but nothing was done notwithstanding repeated representations made by the petitioners to all concerned including the Hon'ble Ministry, Government of West Bengal, Department of Industry. Because of various reasons the petitioners had to stop manufacturing activities since 1988. In spite of that the petitioners made representations to all concerned for amending the permanent registration including the aforesaid item of colour TV as the petitioners have already manufactured and sold large quantity of colour TV and consequently the petitioner has been facing liability of payment of sales taxes though the same were not realised acting upon assurance and promise held out by the Government that exemption would be granted to the Small Scale Industries like petitioners. Instead of considering the aforesaid application the Director of Small Scale Industries most wrongfully and illegally cancelled the said permanent registration by a notice and/or memo dated 12th Nov. 1992.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid action by cancellation of permanent registration without granting prayer of petitioners for Inclusion of colour TV, the petitioners filed a writ petition in this Court for the reliefs amongst others for setting aside, and quashing of the aforesaid cancellation order and further granting registration by way of inclusion of the petitioners' unit as a manufacturer of colour TV. The said writ petition was disposed of by His Lordship the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir when His Lordship was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition by an order dated 8th Feb. 1996 whereby and where-under His Lorship was pleased to direct the Joint Director, Cottage and Small Scale Industries, Government of West Bengal, the respondent No. 2 therein, to reconsider the petitioner's fresh application for grant of a fresh S.S.I. registration certificate in respect of the production of colour TV, as prayed for by the petitioner, within two weeks from the date of communication of this order, in accordance with law and after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing and by passing a reasoned order.
6. It appears the aforesaid order was communicated on 16th Feb. 1996 and the aforesaid representation was disposed of on 25th March, 1996, So, apparently the case was not disposed of within the time limit fixed by the Court however the petitioners acquisced in such delayed action and in fact no ground has been taken against the aforesaid case being disposed of beyond the time limit.
7. Mr. P.K. Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate, appearing in support of the petition submits that the respondent authority has not disposed of the case of the petitioners in terms and spirit of the order passed by this Court. The aforesaid Joint Director did not correctly undrestand and appreciate the order passed by Justice Kabir. The Joint Director has misunderstood as having recorded that the petitioner did not make any fresh application for grant of registration in respect of colour TV. He should have considered and appreciated the materials which have already been filed in the department and could have disposed of the applications previously filed by the petitioners as such no fresh application was needed, The observation and reasons of the Joint Director not granting registration in relation to colour TV are wholly contrary to the records. He argues the Joint Director in fact did not dispose of the matter at all. He without applying his mind rejected the claim of the petitioners.
8. Mr, Chatterjee subjects that it a clear case of promissory estoppel as the petitioners having acted upon in terms of the promise held out by the Government that the Small Scale Unit would be exempted from paying any sales tax in case it undertook manufacturing various items like colour TV, have acted upon and altered its position by installing sophisticated machines and equipments which are mostly of imported varieties and have manufactured colour TV and sold it in the market. The petitioners have sold the same without realising any sales taxes. So the Government should be held to the aforesaid promise to be bound and shall not realise and/or recover any sales tax from the petitioners for manufacturing and sale, of colour TVs undertaken by the petitioners during 1986 and 1988. The aforesaid case of promissory estoppel have not been considered and appreciated at all by the Joint Director. He admits that at the present moment in fact the SSI unit of the petitioners, have been closed and now the petitioners' real interest in getting exemption from payment of sales tax on account of manufacturing and sale of colour TVs during 1986 and1988. He relies on in this connection three decisions of the Supreme Court reported in : [1979]118ITR326(SC) : : [1987]165ITR57(SC) and 1987 (Supp) SCC710.
9. Mr. Tapan Dutta, learned Advocate, while opposing this application submits that this petition cannot be entertained at all as at the present moment the petitioners admittedly have closed their SSI unit and no manufacturing activity is being carried on. The previous order cancelling permanent registration of the petitioners' unit as small scale unit is still valid and subsisting as His Lordship Mr. Justice Kabir did not set aside and quash the same. Therefore, the question of granting fresh registration or revival of registration of the petitioners' unit as being small scale industry do not and cannot arise. So far as the impugned order passed by the Joint Director' is concerned the same does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity as the petitioners could not establish the case for granting fresh registration as no material placed before him nor any application as such was pending. Even if it is assumed the old applications were required to be considered by the Joint Director the same could not be disposed of in view of lack of materials.
10. Having heard the respective submissions of the learned lawyers and while considering the reliefs claimed herein I am to examine and analyse the prayers made herein.
11. So far prayer (b) is concerned for rescinding and/or recalling and/or cancelling the memo dated 12th Oct. 1992 is concerned the same cannot be granted for the simple reason that the aforesaid memo was challenged in the previous writ petition and such relief was not granted expressed by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kabir. I accept the argument of Mrs. Dutta that when the learned Judge previously did not quash and/or set aside the said memo, it is not open for the writ petitioners to challenge once again. When it was not set aside and quashed in expressed terms the petitioners should have preferred an appeal and/or applied for review for obtaining the relief quashing in expressed terms. As such the said impugned order cannot be reopened as on today, since it is hit by the principle of res judicata. The explanation V of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides as follows :--
'Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall for the purpose of this section, be deemed tohave been refused.'
It is now well settled principle of law res judicata is applicable in case of writ jurisdiction. So it is not possible to give relief in terms of prayer {b).
12. Now whether the impugned order dated 25th March, 1996 is required to be judicially reviewed by this Court or not.
13. I have gone through the impugnedorder and I am of the view that the concernedofficer has not understood the scope andpurport of the order passed by Justice Kabir.The officer has not considered the application of the petitioners afresh for grantingfresh SSI registration certificate in respectofthe production of colour TVs. The officerconcerned unnecessarily laid stress uponthe petitioners' inability to withdraw the application for keeping in abeyance of registration for all other electronic items except blackand while TV. It appears to me that the JointDirector did not consider the petitioners'case as there was no application for thepetitioners and necessary papers for granting registration in relation to manufacture ofcolour TV. From the materials annexed to thewrit petition it appears to me that there arematerials from which Joint Director couldhave decided the case on merit. But it was notdone so.
14. So, I could have directed the Joint Director to decide afresh after quashing the same but it would prolong to settle dispute. In my view when the authority concerned has not been able to decide this matter inspite of opportunity being given it is for the Court now to decide the same on the material placed before it.
15. Now it appears to me that the petitioner went in substance, that they should be granted with registration as a small scale industry afresh in relation to manufacture of colour TVs allegedly done in 1986 and 1988. So far granting of registration of manufacturing of colour TV for future date is concerned, the same is out of question since as on today admittedly the petitioners have closed their unit.
16. Now question remains as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the fresh registration for manufacturing of colour TVs done in past in 1986 and 1988 consequently the petitioners were entitled to exemption from payment of sales tax pursuant to the promise and/or policy enunciated by the State Gov-ernment or not. The petitioners have not been able to satisfy the Court with the documents annexed to the petition that the petitioners manufactured colour TVs from 1986 and 1988. Moreover, the petitioners made the said application in the year 1985-86 since then they did not pursue the matter until 1992. Therefore, it was not possible for the Court as on today to grant any registration of the petitioners' unit as being small scale industry for manufacturing of colour TVs. Needless to mention it is desire of Justice Kabir that consideration should be in accordance with law. As such, such registration is not possible to be granted under the law by the State Government.
17. Another question remains as to whether the petitioner is entitled for exemption pursuant to the promise given by the Government under the policy. Even assuming the petitioners manufactured colour TVs without being registered, the aforesaid promise is not enforceable in this case. The petitioners did manufacture colour TV without being registered as SSI unit at their own risk. The aforesaid promise is enforceable in case of registered SSI units. Admittedly the petitioners at the time of manufacturing and marketing of the aforesaid item of colour TV was not registered . No benefit of exemption can be granted applying the principle of deemed registration. So the cases cited by Mr. Chatterjee on the point of promissory estoppel are not applicable at all.
18. Under such circumstances no relief can be granted to this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
19. There will be no order as to costs.
20. Urgent xerox certificate copy would be made available if applied for.