Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Oriental Export Corporation, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents, particularly the Director General of Foreign Trade, to revalidate, renew and extend the period of Duty Free Import Authorization (DFIA) licenses. Between 23 April 2008 and 25 November 2010, 24 DFIA licenses were issued to the petitioner. The petitioner claimed to have complied with the export obligation, and the third respondent issued a certificate of discharge of export obligation. The petitioner then applied for revalidation of the licenses, but the Foreign Trade Development Officer rejected the request by orders dated between 18 May 2011 and 5 July 2011, on the ground that the request could not be considered under paragraph 2.13.1 of the Hand Book of Procedures. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petition was not maintainable because a statutory alternative remedy of appeal under Section 9(5) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 was available to the petitioner, which the petitioner failed to avail within the prescribed period of 90 days. The court examined the relevant provisions, including Section 9(2) and Section 9(5) of the Act. Section 9(5) provides for an appeal against an order refusing to grant or renew a licence, certificate, scrip or any instrument bestowing financial or fiscal benefit. The court noted that the petitioner had a remedy by way of appeal, which was an efficacious alternative remedy. The court held that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy is a relevant factor in exercising discretion under Article 226, and since the petitioner did not avail the remedy, the writ petition was not maintainable. The court dismissed the petition on the ground of alternative remedy without going into the merits of the case.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Alternative Remedy - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Section 9(5) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 - The petitioner sought revalidation of DFIA licenses under the Foreign Trade Policy. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 9(5) of the Act, which was not availed within the prescribed period of 90 days. The court held that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy is a relevant factor in exercising discretion under Article 226, and since the petitioner failed to avail the remedy, the writ petition was not maintainable. (Paras 3-7) B) Foreign Trade Law - Duty Free Import Authorization (DFIA) - Revalidation of License - Paragraph 2.13.1 of Hand Book of Procedures - The petitioner applied for revalidation of DFIA licenses after discharge of export obligation. The Foreign Trade Development Officer rejected the request citing paragraph 2.13.1 of the Hand Book of Procedures. The court did not adjudicate on merits due to the preliminary objection. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable when a statutory alternative remedy of appeal under Section 9(5) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 was available and not availed within the prescribed period.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Alternative remedy
- Maintainability of writ petition
- Section 9(5) Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1992
- Article 226 Constitution of India
