Delhi High Court
Bishan Saroop Ram Kishan Agro Pvt. Ltd vs Agricultural And Processed Food ... on 8 August, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
$~72.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4786/2011 & CM No.11447/2011 (for condonation of delay).
BISHAN SAROOP RAM KISHAN AGRO PVT. LTD. .... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Atul Nanda, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Siddharth Singla, Ms. Rameeza
Hakeem, Mr. Rajat Brar & Mr. Anvit
Jain, Adv.
versus
AGRICULTURAL AND PROCESSED FOOD PRODUCTS
EXPORT DEV. AUTHORITY AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sachin Datta with Mr.
Abhimanyu Kumar, Adv. for R-1
along with Mr. Naveen Sharma,
(DM), APEDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 08.08.2011
1. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.1 Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) states that the petitioner has been de-registered for an attempt to export Non- Basmati Rice and consignment in which regard was confiscated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Lucknow.
2. The respondent no.1 APEDA to file a better affidavit along with all the documents on the basis whereof satisfaction was reached that the petitioner was guilty of the export for which it has been de-registered. The W.P.(C) No. 4786/2011 Page 1 of 4 same be filed within one week.
3. The counsel for the respondent no.1 states that DRI would be a necessary and property party. He seeks impleadment of DRI which would be in possession of the entire record in this regard.
4. The senior counsel for the petitioner opposes the impleadment of DRI stating that the respondent no.1 APEDA could not have acted at the behest of the DRI.
5. Since the allegations against the petitioner are grave and the investigating agency is DRI which would be in the possession of entire record, this Court feels that the petitioner should not derive any benefit of technicalities and it is expedient that all the records are placed before this Court for this Court to find out whether there is any merit in the conclusion on the basis whereof the petitioner has been de-registered.
6. Accordingly, DRI is impleaded as the respondent no.3. The petitioner to serve the nominated counsel for DRI. The counsel for the respondent no.1 APEDA to also inform the nominated counsel for DRI and the entire record of DRI be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing.
7. At this stage, the senior counsel for the petitioner on instructions states that without conferring any right on the petitioner to export, the matter may be remanded to the respondent no.1 APEDA for decision afresh after W.P.(C) No. 4786/2011 Page 2 of 4 furnishing to the petitioner the entire record from DRI on the basis whereof the decision has been taken and giving an opportunity to the petitioner to respond thereto.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed with the following directions:-
a) The respondent no.1 APEDA to within two weeks hereof furnish to the petitioner the entire material in its power and possession for reaching the decision impugned in this petition;
b) It is clarified that the respondent no.1 APEDA shall be entitled to call for further material from DRI and to furnish the same to the petitioner;
c) The petitioner to within one week thereafter file its response thereto;
d) The petitioner to appear before the respondent no.1 APEDA for hearing on 5th September, 2011 at 1100 hours and on such subsequent dates as may be necessary;
e) The respondent no.1 APEDA to pass a fresh reasoned order dealing with the contentions of the petitioner on or before 20 th September, 2011 and to communicate the same to the petitioner;
f) If the petitioner remains aggrieved, the petitioner shall have W.P.(C) No. 4786/2011 Page 3 of 4 remedies in law;
g) Till the decision as aforesaid, the bar on the petitioner from exporting to continue.
No order as to costs.
Dasti.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,J AUGUST 08, 2011 pp..
W.P.(C) No. 4786/2011 Page 4 of 4