Bombay High Court
Jayant Vegoils And Chemicals (P) Ltd. ... vs Union Of India And Others on 9 January, 1986
Equivalent citations: 1986(7)ECC195, 1987(30)ELT134(BOM)
JUDGMENT Pendse, J.
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners are challenging the legality of order dated July 12, 1984 passed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports in exercise of powers under clause 8 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 debarring the petitioners from importing any goods and from receiving import licences C.C.Ps. and allotment of imported goods through S.T.C., M.M.T.C. and further directing that no licence or allotment of imported goods shall be granted nor shall they be permitted to import any goods from December 17, 1983 to March 31, 1988. The facts giving rise to passing of this order are as follows.
2. Petitioner No. 1 are a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, carrying on diverse business activities in the firm name and style of M/s. Jayant Oil Mills. Petitioners Nos. 2 to 7 are the directors of the petitioner No. 1-company. Petitioner No. 1 are a registered export house since last over ten years and the export house registration certificate granted in favour of petitioner No. 1 was valid up to June, 1984. Petitioner No. 1 as the registered export house was entitled to effect import in respect of the licences issued in their own names or transferred to them by others. The Imports Policy relevant for the period commencing from April, 1980 to March, 1981 enabled petitioner No. 1 to secure E.R.P. licences by transfer without an endorsement or permission from any agency and the only condition imposed was that if any O.G.L. items were imported under these R.E.P. licences, then the licences were to be made non-transferable and endorsed for import of O.G.L. items by the licensing authority. Accordingly, the petitioners acquired eight R.E.P. licences and had the same made non-transferable and endorsed for the imports of raw materials. The endorsement provided that the licences were valid for import of items in accordance with the provisions made in paragraph 176(1) and (2) of the AM 81 Policy. The petitioners thereafter on May 26, 1981 appointed M/s. Jayant Oil Product Pvt. Ltd. as their letter of authority holders in terms of provisions of paragraphs 382 and 383 of the Hand Book of Import and Export Procedures 1980-81 to import goods on their behalf against all the said eight R.E.P. licences. Thereafter M/s. Jayant Oil Product Pvt. Ltd. entered into contract dated May 27, 1981 with M/s Interice, London for supply of 225 metric tons of inedible pure beef tallow for the shipment during September/October 1981 at Calcutta Port. As per the contract, M/s. Interice Shipped 143.200 metric tons of beef tallow and M/s. Jayant Oil Product Pvt. Ltd. filed bill of entry for home consumption of November 4, 1981. The bill of entry bears requisite remarks/endorsement of the Calcutta customs authorities. The beef tallow was sold on high seas basis to Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd., Calcutta, who are the actual users of the beef tallow, utilising the same for manufacturing soaps. On November 24, 1981 Tata Oil Mills issued certificate evidencing purchase of the consignment on high seas basis for exclusive industrial use for manufacturing soap.
3. In the month of July/August, 1983, the Government of India discovered that certain unscrupulous persons had imported beef tallow from abroad and either sold it as vanaspati or used it in its manufacture. The discovery was a shock to the country and there was public agitation and questions were asked in the Parliament. As a result of this commotion the respondents swung into action and placed petitioner No. 1 under abeyance in the list issued on December 17, 1983. The abeyance order was challenged by petitioner No. 1 and that challenge is still not decided. Thereafter from March, 1984 petitioner No. 1, M/s. Jayant Oil Products Pvt. Ltd. and Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. were served with several show cause notices. On June 14, 1984 two show cause notices were issued to the Petitioner No. 1 in respect of eight licences granted during the subsistence of the Import Policy for AM 1981. The show cause notices inter alia, alleged that R.E.P. licences were not valid for the import of beef tallow and as the import was effected by petitioner No. 1 why action should not be taken against them, their partners/proprietors for debarment. Petitioner No. 1 sent a detailed reply on July 9, 1984 pointing out various reason why the allegation that import was invalid was incorrect and the action was not called for. Respondent No. 2, Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, thereafter passed the impugned order dated July 12, 1984 in respect of show cause notices dated June 14, 1984 debarring the petitioners for a period of five years from importing any goods and directing that no licences or allotment of imported goods shall be granted to them.
In all eleven show cause notices were issued by respondent No. 2 and all these show cause notices allege the identical violation in respect of the same goods and two show cause notices were disposed of by the impugned order dated July 12, 1984. This order is challenged in the present petition and also the legality of the remaining nine show cause notices.
The petition was admitted on September 3, 1984 and it was directed that though hearing of the remaining show cause notices can proceed no formal order should be passed thereon. It appears that prior to the date of passing of this order, on September 1, 1984 respondent No. 2 had disposed of four show cause notices out of remaining nine and thereupon the petitioners filed another petition, being Writ Petition No. 2074 of 1984 challenging the order dated September 1, 1984, It is not in dispute that the remaining five show cause notices are not yet disposed of. In view of this position, though the petitioners have challenged the order dated July 12, 1984 as well as issuance of nine show cause notices in the present petition, I propose to deal only with the order passed by respondent No. 2 in respect to two show cause notices issued on June 14, 1984.
4. To appreciate the circumstances which led to the passing of the impugned order by respondent No. 2, it is necessary to make reference to the procedure for import of beef tallow in existence at the relevant time.
The Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 empowers the Central Government to prohibit, restrict or otherwise control imports. In exercise of powers conferred by this Act, the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 was issued on December 7, 1955. Schedule I to the said Order contains the list of articles, of which import is controlled. Import of such items is prohibited except (i) under and in accordance with a licence or customs clearance permit issued under the said Order; or (ii) if they are covered by an Open General Licence subject to such conditions as may be stipulated, or (iii) if they are covered by the saving clause 11 of the Imports (Control) Order. The Imports and Exports Policy is announced for each financial year by means of Public Notices in the Gazette of India Extraordinary. Changes or amendments in the Import or Export Policy that become necessary from time to time are separately notified by means of Public Notices. The Import Policy for the financial years 1980-81 sets out in different appendices items which are banned, which are restricted and which are canalised. Paragraph 164 of the Import Policy of 1981 recites that the objective of the scheme of registration of export houses and the grant of special facility to them is to strengthen their negotiating capacity in foreign trade and to build up a more enduring relationship between them and their supporting manufacturers. The export houses, under paragraph 176(1), were entitled to import on the import replenishment licences issued in their own names or transferred to them by others, raw materials, components and spares (excluding those covered by Appendix 5) which have been placed on Open General Licence for actual users. Appendix 10 deals with "imports of items under Open General Licence" and sets out the categories of importers, the items allowed to be imported by them under O.G.L. and the conditions governing the importation. The first items reads as under :
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Items Categories of
eligible
importers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Raw materials, components and consumable (non-iron Actual and steel items) other than those included in the users Appendices 3, 5, 8, 9 and 15. (Industrial)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix 8 sets out the list of items, import of which is canalised through public sector agencies, and item 45 is "mutton tallow" and the canalising agency is State Trading Corporation of India. It is not in dispute that the import of beef tallow during the months of April, 1980 and March, 1981 was permissible under O.G.L.
5. The Import Policy AM 1982, which was for the period commencing from April, 1981 till March, 1982 also permitted import of beef tallow under O.G.L. Condition 24 governing imports under O.G.L. annexed to Appendix 10, and which was Condition 22 in the earlier policy, reads as under :
"Nothing in the Open General Licence shall affect the application to any goods, of any other prohibition or regulation affecting the import thereof, in force, at the time when they are actually imported."
The Import Policy AM 1981-82 deals with transitional arrangements under Chapter 21, and paragraph 222(3) reads as under :
"R.E.P. licences and additional licences held by export houses will cease to be valid for import of any item which could be imported under Open General Licence during 1980-81 but is no longer so in this import policy, except for such firm commitments as have been made by opening irrevocable letters of credit through authorised dealers in foreign exchange before 1-4-1981."
Mutton tallow was an item even under Import Policy of AM 1982, which could be imported only through the canalising agency, but the beef tallow could be imported under Open General Licence.
On June 5, 1981, the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, issued Public Notice under 29/ITC/(PN)/81 carrying out amendment in the Import Policy. By this amendment the existing description of item "mutton tallow" in Appendix 8 was altered to "tallow of any animal origin, including mutton tallow", with the result that beef tallow could not be imported thereafter under Open General Licence but only through the canalising agency, that is the State Trading Corporation.
In respect of 8 R.E.P. licences held by the petitioner No. 1 and issued between August 28, 1980 and October 28, 1980, beef tallow was imported under the contract with M/s. Interice, London, under the bill of entry dated November 4, 1981, that is, after issuance of Public Notice dated June 5, 1981. The import of beef tallow was duly cleared by the customs authorities, by this import has given rise to the issue of show cause notices by respondent No. 2 in exercise of powers under clause 8 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955.
6. Clause 8 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 enables the Central Government or the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports to debar an agency or importer or any other person from importing goods or from receiving licence or allotment or imported goods for certain reasons set out in the clause. Respondent No. 2 by the impugned order has debarred the petitioners on the finding that sub-clauses (f) and (g) of clause 8 was violated. The relevant portion of Clause 8(f) and (g) reads of under :-
"8. Power to debar from importing goods or from receiving licences or allotments of imported goods. - (1) The Central Government or the Chief Controller of Imports & Exports may debar a licensee or importer or any other person from all or any of the following i.e. importing any goods or receiving licences or allotment of the imported goods through the State Trading Corporation of India, the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India, or any other similar agency and direct, without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him in this behalf, that no licence or allotment of imported goods shall be granted to him and he shall not be permitted to import any goods for a specified period under this Order :-
.................................
(f) if he fails to comply with or contravenes or attempts to contravene or abets the contravention of any conditions embodied in, or accompanying, a licence or an application for a licence or
(g) if he commits a breach of any law (including any rule, order or regulation) relating to customs or the imports and export of goods or foreign exchange; or"
The gravemen of the charge is that after June 5, 1981 the petitioners were not entitled to import beef tallow as the import was canalised through the State Trading Corporation. The petitioners on the other hand contend that each R.E.P. import licences were issued prior to June 5, 1981 and each of the licence contains a condition that the licence would be subject to the conditions in force relating to the goods at the time of issuance of the licence. The petitioners claim that as the public notice dated June 5, 1981 did not specifically prohibit import of beef tallow under licence granted prior to June 5, 1981, the import though was of a period subsequent to June 5, 1981, was not in contravention of any law. The petitioners claim that the Government of India and the Central Board of Excise and Customs have always accepted the position that in respect of the licences granted prior to June 5, 1981 it is open to import beef tallow subsequent to June 5, 1981, in the absence of specific prohibition in the public notice.
7. The impugned order, which is very vague and unsatisfactory, furnished two reasons for holding that the petitioners have contravened sub-clauses (f) and (g) of Clause 8 of the Import (Control) Order, 1955. The two grounds are - (1) that condition No. 24 of Appendix 10 of Import Policy Book for AM 1982 prohibits import of beef tallow after June 5, 1981; and (2) that the petitioners have imported beef tallow on sight basis and no letter of credit was opened. Respondent No. 2 by-passed the decision taken by the Government of India and Central Board of Excise and Customs by observing that the said decisions were rendered without reference to paragraph 222(3) as well as condition 24 of Appendix 10 of the Import Policy AM 1982, and that decision is under challenge.
8. Shri Desai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the importability under licence was governed by the import policy prevailing on the date of issue of licence and beef tallow was not canalised item at the relevant time. The learned counsel urged that the Government of India as well as authorities like Central Board of Excise and Customs concerned with the import of items, have consistently taken the view that the importability under the licence must be regulated by the policy prevailing at the date of issue of licence and the right conferred on the licence holder on that date cannot be taken away, unless specifically provided by the subsequent amendment. Shri Desai further submitted that reliance by respondent No. 2 on paragraph 222(3) and condition 24 of the Appendix 10 of the Import Policy of the year 1981-82 was entirely misconceived. It was further contended that in any event there was no wilful disobedience on the part of the petitioners, and therefore, there was no occasion to pass orders in exercise of powers under clause 8 of the import (Control) Order, 1955. Shri Desai further submitted that respondent No. 2 in his over enthusiasm has proceeded to pass orders even against the directors of petitioner No. 1, even when show cause notices were not served on them. Finally the learned counsel urged that even assuming that the petitioners are guilty of contravention, the quantum of punishment imposed by respondent No. 2 is totally disproportionate to the alleged violation.
Shri Dhanuka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand urged that once an item is canalised, then it cannot be imported as an O.G.L. item except by canalising agency. The learned counsel urged that after June 5, 1981 beef tallow was a canalised item and under Chapter X of the Policy Book special procedure is prescribed in respect of import of canalised goods and allotment and disposal of the same. According to Shri Dhanuka once the items is canalised, neither the eligible actual user nor the R.E.P. licence holder can import the same. The learned counsel further urged that even if the item is canalised during the middle of the year and not at the commencement, still provisions of paragraph 222(3) of the Policy would be attracted. The learned counsel also urged that condition 24 of Appendix 10 clearly prescribes that the import cannot be made if there was any restriction or prohibition on the date of actual import, even if such prohibition or restriction was not in existence at the time of grants of licence or at the commencement of the Policy. Shri Dhanuka urged that respondent No. 2 had only to determine whether the petitioners had violated that provisions of clause 8 of the Import (Control) Order and it is not necessary to ascertain whether there was any mens rea or wilful disobedience on the part of the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the quantum of punishment must always be left to the discretion of authorities concerned and that aspect is not open to interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Shri Dhanuka with his usual fairness conceded that the order could not be passed by respondent No. 2 against the directors as they were not served with show cause notices.
9. With these rival arguments, the first contention which requires answer is whether the petitioners violated any provisions of the Import (Control) Order, 1955 by import of beef tallow subsequent to June 5, 1981. It is not in dispute that 8 R.E.P. licences held by petitioner No. 1 and granted during the subsistence of Import Policy of AM 1981 enabled the petitioners to import beef tallow under O.G.L. It is not in dispute that for the entire Policy period AM 1981 the item "beef tallow" was not a canalised item and available for import under O.G.L. It is not in dispute that at the time of declaration of Import Policy for AM 1982 beef tallow was not made a canalised items but could be imported under O.G.L. Condition I set out in the import licence reads as under :
"This licence will be subject to the conditions in force relating to the goods covered by the licence, as described in the Import Trade. Control Policy Book for the period during which the licence has been issued, or any amendments thereof made upto, and including the date of issue of the licence, unless otherwise specified."
Relying on this clause, Shri Desai urged that the importability under the licence was governed by the Import Policy prevailing on the date of issue of licence and as beef tallow could be imported under O.G.L. at the time of issuance of the licence, it is not open for the respondents to claim that the import could not be effected subsequent to June 5, 1981. As mentioned hereinabove, it is not in dispute that the public notice dated June 5, 1981 did not specify that the inclusion of beef tallow as a canalised item would affect the licence granted prior to that date. Shri Desai then submits that not only this position is very clear by the plain reading of the licence and the Import Policy, but the Central Board of Excise and Customs and the Government of India have consistently taken that view. The submissions of the learned counsel is correct.
10. The first decision to which reference was made is one given by Central Board of Excise and Customs on December 23, 1981 in the case of M/s. Arvind Exports Private Limited. The said concern had imported inedible beef tallow valued at Rs. 25,57,080 and the Collector of Customs, Cochin, confiscated the same under Section 11(d) of the Customs Act on the strength of the finding that the licences covering the consignment issued to an export house was not valid for import of beef tallow after the Public Notice No. 29/81 dated June 5, 1981 was issued. The Additional Collector held that the import can be made only through the canalised agency even though the licences were issued on July 30, and August 6, 1980, that is, during the subsistence of the Import Policy AM 1981. In appeal the attention of the Central Board of Excise and Customs was invited to the decision of the Supreme Court , M/s. Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. P. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay and Another and various orders issued by the Government from time to time holding that the licence has to be interpreted with regard to the restrictions in force at the time of its issue. The Board came to the conclusion that ITC Public Notice No. 29/81 of June 5, 1981 canalising the importation of beef tallow cannot affect the licence issued during the period covered by the earlier Import Policy. It was further held that the licence must be governed by the Policy in existence on the date of issuance of the licence and amendment made after that date cannot have any application to the licence. Against this decision of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, review application was filed by the Collector of Cochin and the Government of India concurred with the view of the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The order passed by the Government observes :
"A licence is governed by the policy which is made applicable to it. Restrictions placed on the import of goods in the policy for the subsequent years have to be ignored, unless of course, any such restriction has been specifically made applicable to licences issued earlier either generally or in the particular cases. In this case the licences were issued during the policy for the period AM-81 and were governed by this policy only particularly para 174(v) thereof. These licences were valid for the goods in question as only mutton tallow was in the list of canalised items ...... When vide Public Notice No. 29/81 dated June 5, 1981 beef tallow was put in the canalised items it is from this date only that it became canalised. In the public notices there is no specific invalidating licence previously issued so for as beef tallow is concerned, in case such licences were valid earlier to import this item. In the absence of any specific prohibition the licence produced by the importer in this case had to be accepted for the clearance of beef tallow. The decision of the Board is correct in law."
11. There is one more decision of the Central Board of Excise and Customs delivered on May 3, 1982 supporting the claim of the petitioners and this decision is in the case of Jayant Oil Mills Private Limited. In this case also the beef tallow imported by Jayant Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. was confiscated by the Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and in appeal that order was set aside. The Central Board relied upon its earlier decision and also the order of the Government of India passed in the review petition and to which reference is made hereinabove. Shri Desai submits that it is the consistent view of the Government of India and the Central Board of Excise and Customs that the importability must be determined with reference to the date of issuance of the licence and the Public Notice dated June 5, 1981 does not put any restriction or prohibition on the right of the petitioners to import beef tallow. Shri Desai then submitted with reference to the decision of the Supreme Court , Desh Bandhu Gupta and Co. and Others v. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd., that it is an accepted principle that much weight should be given to the interpretation of the policy by the authorities and the Government and such interpretation need not be disregarded by the Court unless cogent and persuasive reasons are shown or a clear case of error is established.
12. Shri Dhanuka submitted that it is undoubtedly true that the Government of India and Central Board of Excise and Customs have taken decisions which entirely supports the claim of the petitioners and those decisions undoubtedly deal with the effect of public notice dated June 5, 1981, but urged that the decisions are not accurate and the Government of India has instructed him to submit that the present Government do not think that that view is correct. It hardly requires to be stated that merely because there is change of opinion in the Government agency that would not be a sufficient reason to by-pass the consistent decision taken by the Government over the period of time and more so, in case of import of beef tallow after the issuance of public notice dated June 5, 1981. Independently of this consideration, I inquired from the learned counsel as to what is the error in the view taken earlier by the Government and the Central Board of Excise and Customs, and the learned counsel made some efforts to urge that the view is not correct. Shri Dhanuka submitted that once the item is canalised, then the question of import as an OGL item is clearly excluded and such import is not permissible, either by the actual users or by R.E.P. licence holders. There could be no debate on this aspect, but the question is what happens to the licences already issued prior to the date of public notice. Shri Dhanuka placed reliance upon condition 24 annexed to Appendix 10 and which is set out hereinabove. The learned counsel urged that this condition prescribes that nothing in the O.G.L. shall affect the application to any goods, of any other prohibition or regulation affecting the import thereof and in force at the time when the goods are actually imported. Shri Dhanuka desired to suggest that this condition provides that if there is any prohibition, restriction or regulation for import of goods on the date of importation, then it must be given effect to irrespective of whether the restriction is put by policy itself or by any other statute or rules. It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel. Condition No. 24 uses specific words "of any other prohibition or regulation affecting import thereof" and it my judgment, the expression "other" clearly indicates that the restriction or prohibition must be dehors the import policy. The construction suggested by Shri Dhanuka would do violence to the plain language of Condition No. 24. Shri Dhanuka also submitted with reference to paragraph 222(3) that once any item is included in Appendices 8 and 9, and the import is possible only through canalised agency, then the import under O.G.L. is not permissible, unless that right is specifically reserved as in the case of paragraph 222(3) of the Import Policy AM 82. This paragraph prescribes that the licence will cease to be valid for import of any item which could be imported under O.G.L. during 1980-81 but is no longer so in the Import Policy of 1981-82, and then carves out an exception in respect of firm commitments made by opening an irrevocable letter of credit through authorised agents and valid only before April, 1981. In my judgment, this paragraph deals with a situation existing at the time of declaration or publication of Import Policy of AM 82 and this paragraph cannot be attracted to an amendment carried out in the Import Policy for the first time on June 5, 1981. It is futile for the respondents to suggest that as soon as the policy was amended on June 5, 1981 the import of beef tallow would be prohibited under the licences issued during 1980-81 unless firm commitments made by opening irrevocable letters of credit are established prior to April 1, 1981. Shri Dhanuka submitted that even though this paragraph is not attached to an amendment effected subsequent to April 1, 1981, still the principle embodied in the paragraph should be applied and given effect to. Shri Dhanuka sounded an apprehension that if the construction suggested on behalf of the petitioners is accepted it would lead to a serious difficulty because though the item is canalised from June 5, 1981, the licence holder holding licence granted prior to June 5, 1981 would continue to import beef tallow ignoring the canalising agency. Shri Dhanuka urged that once an item of beef tallow is taken out of O.G.L. then the R.E.P. licence holders should not be permitted to import the same. Shri Dhanuka had to concede that in accordance with paragraph 64 in Chapter X of the Import Policy dealing with canalising of import, even the canalising agency imports the item under O.G.L. It was urged by the learned counsel that the procedure under Chapter X is a special procedure and merely because the canalising agency imports the article under O.G.L. that should not be considered as a charter to the R.E.P. licence holder to do so. Shri Dhanuka is right in his submission that once the item is included in Appendices 8 and 9, then it is not permissible for the licence holder, who has secured licence subsequent to that date, to import beef tallow, but that would not prevent the licence holder who has secured the licence prior to that date. As there is no specific prohibition in the public notice affecting the earlier licence holders, it is not possible to disturb their right. In this connection it must be remembered that the Government of India with effect from March 24, 1983 has totally banned import of beef tallow into India, and therefore, the question does not arise of any import subsequent to that date. The present show cause notices and the impugned order was passed in respect of import which was effected long prior to that date. In my judgment, respondent No. 2 was clearly in error in ignoring the earlier orders passed by the Government of India and the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Respondent No. 2 was also clearly in error in relying upon condition No. 24 of Appendix 10 and intends of paragraph 222(3) to hold that the petitioners have contravened provisions of sub-clauses (f) and (g) of clause 8 of the imports (Control) Order, 1955. The impugned order passed by respondent No. 2 is clearly unsustainable and deserves to be quashed.
13. It is really not necessary to consider the other submissions of Shri Desai that there was no wilful disobedience on the part of the petitioners and the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the alleged violation, in view of my finding that the petitioners were not guilty of violation of any of the provisions of clause 8 of the Import (Control) Order. It must be recorded that respondent No. 2 was clearly in error in passing order of debarment against the directors when respondent No. 2 had not even bothered to serve any show cause notice on them. It is desirable that the authorities conferred with quasi-judicial powers should not fall prey to the passion or the sentiments of the day, but should exercise powers with care and in accordance with law. In case respondent No. 2 would have taken some more care then the order would not have been passed against the directors without a show cause notice.
14. The petitioners have prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated July 12, 1984 and orders passed by the authorities, and copies of which are annexed as exhibits K-1 to K-9 rejecting the applications of the petitioners solely on the ground of the order of debarment. The petitioners have also sought quashing of other eight show cause notices, copies of which are annexed as exhibits I-1 to I-8. As the impugned order dated July 12, 1984 in pursuance of show cause notice at exhibit I-9 is set aside, it is obvious that orders, exhibits K-1 to K-9 are also required to be quashed. The respondents shall pass appropriate orders on those applications on the basis that the order of debarment never existed. As regards the remaining eight show cause notices, three of them are disposed of by order passed by respondent No. 2 on September 1, 1983 and in respect of which Writ Petition No. 2074 of 1984 has been filed and is pending, and therefore in respect of those three show cause notices, no order is required to be passed. As regards the remaining five show cause notices, respondent No. 2 shall dispose of the same in the light of this judgment and these show cause notices should be disposed of within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the writ.
15. Accordingly, petition partially succeeds and the order dated July 12, 1984, copy of which is annexed as exhibit 'G' to the petition, and show cause notice, copy of which is annexed as exhibit I-9 to the petition, are quashed and set aside. The orders, copies of which are at exhibits K-1 to K-9 are also set aside, and the respondents are directed to dispose of these applications afresh on merits and without taking into account the order of debarment passed on July 12, 1984. The respondents are further directed to dispose of the show cause notices, copies of which are annexed as exhibits I-1, I-3 to I-5 and I-7 within six weeks from the date of receipt of writ and in accordance with this judgment. The respondents shall also dispose of the application set out at exhibit "M" by ignoring the debarment order, provided any of those application are not yet disposed of.
16. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.