IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL No.3953 OF 2019 (T – RES) BETWEEN:
M/S. RSWM LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY M/S. CHESLIND TEXTILES LIMITED) NO.1/5G, B. MUDUGANAPALLI, BERIGAI ROAD, BAGALUR, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU – 635 105, REPRESENTED BY (VINOD MEHTA) (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER) ... APPELLANT (BY SRI RAVI RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SYED M. PEERAN, ADVOCATE) AND 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, HAVING HIS OFFICE AT DIRECTORATE OF FOREIGN TRADE, UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI – 110 001.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE 6TH FLOOR, KENDRIYA SADAN, C AND E WING, 17TH MAIN, KORAMANGALA, 2ND BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 034.
... RESPONDENTS (THE ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL IS SERVED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.09.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.32625 OF 2018 (T-RES) ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 04.09.2019, passed in writ petition No.32625 of 2018, by the learned Single Judge, in disposing off the writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, the petitioner therein is in appeal.
2. During the pendency of the writ petition, various orders have been passed by the learned Single Judge to the authorities to consider the case of the writ petitioner on the reasons assigned therein. The orders were passed by the respondents – Authorities. Some of the orders were set aside and some were affirmed. Ultimately, the order dated 09.10.2018 and the communication dated 06.11.2018 were passed by the respondents. When the matter came up for final disposal, the writ petition was disposed off with a liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said order and communication.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the question of approaching the appropriate forum would not arise for consideration and the writ petition has to be decided on merits. That the relief should be granted to the petitioner in terms of the order dated 09.10.2018 at Annexure ‘J’.
4. On hearing appellant’s counsel, we do not find any grounds to interfere in this appeal. During the pendency of the petition, the learned Single Judge has passed various orders and in pursuant to that, the respondents have also passed orders, which are already a part of the record. Writ petition was filed for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to duty credit scrip of Rs.1,35,27,742/- vide Annexure ‘C’ to the writ petition at the rate of 2% of incremental growth in exports during 01.01.2013 to 31.03.2014. Since, interim orders were passed and subsequent orders have also been passed by the authorities based on such directions, it is necessary that the orders passed by the Authorities require to be challenged by the petitioner before the appropriate forum. It is also just and necessary that the petitioner be granted liberty to challenge those orders since subsequent orders have been passed by the authorities pursuant to filing of the writ petition. The writ petition cannot be considered on the pleadings which were made after filing of the writ petition.
5. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ appeal is disposed off with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum to question the validity of the order dated 09.10.2018 as well as the communication dated 06.11.2018. As observed by the learned Single Judge, time spent by the petitioner before this Court till date shall be taken into consideration while considering the proceedings.
Pending I.As’. are rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE nvj