Calcutta High Court
Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 16 September, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1988(34)ELT509(CAL)
JUDGMENT Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J.
1. This writ application was filed by the petitioner inter alia praying for a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 for issuign a 'No Objection Certificate' in the form prescribed in Appendix IV-B of the Hand Book of Import & Export Procedure for the year 1985-88 forthwith entitling the petitioner No. 1 for an import licence of 7700 M.T. of raw-materials, re-rollable scrap as was permissible to be imported as on 14th July, 1986 in the name of the petitioner No. 1 for direct import and for certain other reliefs.
2. The fact of the case in short is that the commodity in question, namely, re-rollable scrap was a canalising item, which means, that those commodities can only be imported into India through the canalising agents only. In this case the canalising agent is, Metal Scrap Trade Corporation Ltd. The raw material was for manufacturing the resultant products, 'Carbon Steel Re-rollable Scrap' is comprehensive and covers in its perview structurals, plate cutting, billet -cutting etc. Since the raw material is not normally available indigenously, the Central Government has been making policy from time to time so as to permit the Actual Users like the petitioner to import such raw materials through the canalising agent and use the same as raw materials for its manufacturing activities. For the purpose of assessment of the requirements, the Central Government appointed assessment committee known as 'Technical committee' and the said technical committee was to assess the requirements of each of the units including the petitioners whose capacity was assessed to the time of 16,700 MTs per annum. The (petitioner No. 1 applied to the respondent No. 2 - Metal Scrap Trade Corporation Ltd. for allotment of imported carbon steel re-rollable scrap. In order to appreciate the facts of this case, it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions laying down the procedures in this behalf. Para 223(l)(a) of the Hand Book of the Import & Export Procedure 1985-88 provides that "Actual Users should send their requirements to the canalising agencies concerned by registered post. The canalising agencies will scrutinise such application and register the demand and ask for deposit of earnest money within 30 days from the date of application. In case the canalising agencies are not able to make such supplies, they will issue 'No Objection Certificate' in the from prescribed in Appendix IV-B of this Book at the time of registration of demand, i.e. the N.O.C. will be issued within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of requirements for issue of an import licence directly in favour of such actual users.
(b) In case the canalising agency is in position to make the supplies, they will send a communication to the Actual Users indicating the arrangement made by them for supplies of the registered demand. The supply of the goods should commence at least within 60 days from the date of receipt of earnest money. The said Hand Book also provided that the contingencies where the canalising agents registered the demand and the canalising agents could not deliver the material within the stipulated time. In this case it is not necessary to set out those provisions as those are not relevant for the present purpose.
3. It may be mentioned that para 215 of the said Book provides that Appendix V of the Import & Export Policy 1985-88 enumerates the list of canalised items. Those included in Appendix V, Part B, will be governed by the policy laid down by the Government in the administrative ministry concerned. In this case by the letter dated 15th June, 1986, the petitioner applied for allotment of 7700 M.T. of imported Carbon Steel Re-rollable Scrap. In the said letter it was pointed out that since the petitioners were the Actual Users of the Re-rollable Scrap, the petitioners should be exempted from the payment of earnest money deposited in the discretion of the said Corporation. This is specifically provided in para 216 of Chapter IV of the Hand Book of Import & Export Procedure for the year 1985-88. By the letter dated 21st June, 1986, the respondent No. 2 informed the petitioner that "which reference to your application No. MSTC/85-86 for demand registration for allotment of imported re-rollable scrap, it may pleased be noted that there has not been a decision for import of Carbon Steel Re-rollable Scrap during the year 1986-87". Thereafter, by the letter dated 13th August, 1986 the petitioner, inter alia, stated that "since the content of the letter is vague and not clear, we would like to know whether you have taken any decision upto the date of this letter or any decision will be taken of the near future to enable us to import raw-materials as per demand registered. Since we have been already in the 2nd quarter of the year and no import is arranged so far, the very spirit of the canalised policy of the Government of India have not been implemented. The Rolling Mills in the southern region are already suffering a lot without getting adequate raw materials comparing the other regions due to various regions like to non-availability mini/ major Steel Plant, ship breaking facilities etc."
4. It was further stated in the said letter "if M.S.T.C. have no idea of importing Carbon Steel Re-rolling Scrap for the actual users for the present year i.e. 1985-86, we may kindly be released N.O.C. at the earliest so that we can approach the concerned authority for obtaining the licence for direct import. You know very well that as per para 223(l)(a). of the Hand Book of Import & Export Procedure for the year 1985-88, "the N.O.C. has to be issued to the Actual Users within 30 days from the date of the registration of demand in case the canalising agents are not able to supplies. In view of the above we request yourselves either to make arrangement for import for re-rollable scrap as per the demand registered with your goodself or the issue of N.O.C. for the same to take necessary further action at our end." Thereafter by the letter dated 8th December, 1986, the respondent No. 2 informed the petitioner "with reference to your letter dated 25-11-1986, it may please be noted that the N.O.C. for direct import of re-rollable scrap was issued only to those parties who met financial arrangement with us within 28th February, 1986. You had also been granted N.O.C. for import of 1670 Ton during 1985-86."
"During the policy of current year (1986-87) there is no plan for import of re-rollable scrap. Accordingly, your proposal of issuance of N.O.C. cannot be entertained."
5. Thereafter, the petitioner also made various correspondences with the said Corporation and in reply to the letter dated 15-12-1986, the said Corporation by the letter dated 5-1-1987 informed the petitioner that the said Corporation had no plan for import of carbon steel re-rollable scrap during the year 1986-87 and consequently no N.O.C. was issued during the current year. The petitioner No. 1 was further informed that the petitioner's contention to issue of N.O.C. for the current year could not be considered as in terms of the Import & Export Policy, a canalising agency is guided by the guideline of the Government for considering import of any particular commodity and under those circumstances, the Corporation expressed its inability to serve the petitioners' demand for the current year. In this connection, the petitioners also moved the Monitoring Committee, Chief Controller of Import & Export, Government of India and by letter dated 27th May, 1987, the petitioner was informed that "with reference to your letter No. SGS/MC/86-87/280, dated 22-12-1986, on the above subject, I write to say that the matter has been considered in consultation with the Department of Steel, New Delhi. The aforesaid Department stated that "during 1986-87, no provision for import of re-rollable scrap was made after taking into account the indigenous availability of bars and rod in the country from all sources. They have, therefore, indicated that they used to meet their requirements of re-rollable scrap from the indigenous sources. You are, therefore, advised to get in touch with the General Manager, C.M.O. SAIL, Calcutta in this regard." Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Steel Authority of India and the Steel Authority of India by letter dated 8th July, 1987 informed the petitioner that "since SAIL is not doing any canalising for the above materials, you are approach M/s. Metal Scrap Trade Corporation, Calcutta for the same. However, we are endorsing a copy of the letter along with a letter in original to them for doing the needful. You are, therefore, requested to contact M/s. Metal Scrap Trade Corporation, Calcutta for this." It may be mentioned that import in this case, was for the period from 1st April, 1986 to 31st of March, 1987. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that if the respondent No. 2, Corporation had no plan to import of the material in question during the year 1986-87, when the petitioner duly made application before such canalising agents and that under such circumstances, there were two alternative course left open to the said canalising agent, namely respondent No. 2 herein, one is to scrutinise the application and register the demand and ask for deposit of the earnest money within 30 days and to supply the materials from indigenous sources. In this case this was not done admittedly. The alternative course opened to the respondent No. 2 was that in case the canalising agents are not able to make supplies, they had to issue 'No Objection Certificate' in the form prescribed in Appendix IV-B of the said Book within 30 days from the date of receipt of requirements, so that on the basis of the said 'No Objection Certificates', the petitioner could apply for direct import licence for importation of the goods in question. It was further pointed out that in terms of para 218, it provides that "in the case of such items are being produced indigenously the canalising agencies will try to meet the requirements from indigenous supply partly or wholly instead of imports. In this case admittedly the respondent No. 2 did not at all try to meet the registered requirements of the petitioner from indigenous supplies. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the said canalising agent, respondent No. 2 herein failed and neglected to discharge the statutory duty imposed upon it by the said procedure laid down by the Central Government either registering the demand for importation or in case of their inability to grant 'No Objection Certificate' so that the petitioner could apply for direct import licence and could import the goods directly or in the alternative to try for procuring the said materials from indigenous sources. On the contrary in this case the said Corporation asked a petitioner to approach the Steel Authority of India for supply but unfortunately the Steel Authority of India expressed their helpless condition in this matter. It was stated by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that if the raw materials in question was available from indigenous sources, in that event, in terms of para 218 of the said Book it was a duty of the said Corporation to try to procure for the same from indigenous sources and on the contrary the said canalising agents simply stated that their had not been any decision for import of Carbon Steel Re-Rollable Scrap during the year 1986-87. The communication was silent about its statutory duty in trying to procure for indigenous sources. It was submitted that no uncertain terms disclosed that the Corporation had not taken any decision for import of that commodity and consequently it is a clear case where the provision of para 223 would come into plea namely the canalising agents have not been able to make supplies and as such there were no statutory duty to issue 'No Objection Certificate' for the purpose of obtaining an import licence or importing goods directly. It was further submitted that when the said Hand Book for procedure laid down various procedures the said respondent No. 2 cannot act at its sweet will in its absolute discretion devoid of the procedure. In this case when the said canalising agencies failed to discharge its duty in not registering the demand and asking for deposit of earnest money within 30 days, the petitioner made an application with the prayer for dispensing with the deposit for earnest money but the respondent No. 2 was silent in this matter. The respondent No. 2 also did not disclose that the registered requirements of the petitioner could be met from indigenous sources. It is submitted that because of arbitrary action on the part of the respondent No. 2 the petitioner had suffered huge loss and injury and in the facts and circumstances of this case the respondent No. 2 was bound to issue 'No Objection Certificate', so that the petitioner could apply for import licence in accordance with law for direct import.
6. The respondents' case in the matter is that the petitioners have no case inasmuch as the respondents are not in any obligation or duty to supply the said items either by importing through the canalising agents or otherwise. It was further stated that as the respondents did not decide to import the said items through canalising agents and as such the petitioners cannot get any 'No Objection Certificate' in the matter in the facts and circumstances of the case. But is was admitted on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that the canalising agencies will try to meet the requirements of the actual users from indigenous supplies partly or wholly instead of imports in respect of canalising agents which was produced indigenously. It was further stated that under the law the said canalising agent is not obliged to import the goods to meet the requirements of the petitioners. It was further stated that in this case the petitioners are trying to compel the respondent No. 2 to do something which is contrary to the policy of the Government. It was specifically alleged that in terms of clause 223(b)(iv) of the Hand Book of the Import & Export Procedure 1985-88 which provides that "the last date for issue of N.O.C. by the canalising agencies will be the last date of February of the licensing period to which the application partners" and that the petitioners had come up before this Court after the lapse of long time when according to the Import & Export Procedure for the year 1985-88, the time for issuance of N.O.C. have expired long time back. It was further alleged that in terms of para 220 of the said procedure the import and distribution of the commodity in question could be made in consultation with the Department of Steel, New Delhi. The said para 220 is applicable to import and distribution to specify canalising items in Appendix V, Part A and as such according to the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents since the Government of India did not take any decision for import of the said raw materials. The question of bringing the said raw materials through the canalising agent did not and could not arise at all and further as there was no decision to import the said raw materials, the question of petitioners' making application and getting the same registered and failure to import the same, the question of issuing 'No Objection Certificate' did not and could not also arise at all in this case. It was also pointed out by the respondents that earlier the petitioners moved this Court another writ application wherein this Court recorded that the petitioners should approach the suppliers of such materials from indigenous sources and the petitioners failed to do so and on the contrary the petitioners asked the Steel Authority of India to import the same which was highly malafide and it was treated the same only to made out a case in the matter. It was further stated that the petitioners were required to register the demand by making financial arrangement with the respondent No. 2 and it was stated that as the petitioners did not make any financial arrangement with the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 2 was not under any obligation to take any steps in the matter whatsoever. It was further stated that the monitoring committee as provided, under the said policy had not taken any decision in the matter for importation of the said goods through the canalising agent and as such there was no obligation on the part of the respondent No. 2 but on mere asking by the petitioner any such goods either to import goods or to issue 'No Objection Certificate' in the facts and circumstances of the case. It was further pointed out that by letter dated 21st 3une, 1986, the respondent No. 2 did not register the demand of the petitioners in terms of para 72 of the Policy Book and as it was further stated that as there was no question of importation of the said materials at the relevant time, the claim of the petitioners to issue 'No Objection Certificate' is wholly baseless.
7. Before I entire into the merits of the rival contentions it is necessary to decide whether the items in question are included in Appendix 5 Part A or Appendix 5 Part B as this question is very relevant for determination of the question is if it is covered by Appendix 5 Part A, in that event, a provision of para 220 of the said Procedure would come into play which requires that import and distribution will have to be made in consultation with the Department of Steel and in the absence of any such derision the question of importation will not arise at all. According to the petitioner Metal Scrap Trade Corporation Ltd. is the only authorised canalising agent in terms of Item No. 34 of Appendix 5 Part A which provides that the said Corporation is the canalising agent for the item Carbon Steel Re-rollable Scrap of all grades and that this fact has not at all been disputed by the respondents in the Affidavit-in-Opposition. It was contended by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners that in the instant case the petitioners have applied for registration of demand on 14-6-1986 which was well within the time. In terms of para 223(l)(a) of the Hand Book of Import & Export Procedure, the actual users were required to send their requirements to the canalsing agencies concerned by registered post and that the canalising agency was to scrutinise such application and register the demand and ask for deposit of earnest money within 30 days. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioners did not make such an application for indicating the requirements to the canalising agencies concerned by registered post within time, but it appears in the instant case the respondent No. 2 instead of registering the same simply informed the petitioners that there had been no decision for import of Carbon Steel Re-rollable Scrap during the year 1986-87. Admittedly, the canalising agent did not scrutinize such application and did not register the demand and ask for deposit of the earnest money within the time specified in this behalf. It may further be mentioned that in terms of para 218 of the said Procedure the canalising agent was required to try to meet the registered requirements of such actual users from indigenous supplies partly or wholly instead of imports. The respondent No. 2 being the canalising agency did not make any whisper by the letter in question that the said items were produced indigenously and were available in the market. Further the said canalising agent informed the petitioners anything about its availability indigenously and admittedly the said canalising agent did not try to meet the registered requirements of the petitioners from indigenous sources. It is also an admitted position that the said canalising agent did not try to meet the demand from indigenous sources but at the same time did not make any communication to the petitioners that as because the said materials were available indigenously and with regard to the question whether the said items were available indigenously, the respondent No. 2 remained totally silent. Further when the petitioners' demand was not registered in terms of the obligation made by the petitioners in his behalf, the petitioners made a further representation before the respondent No. 2 by letter dated 21-10-1986 requesting the said authority to issue necessary 'No Objection Certificate' as per the demand. There was no reply to the said letter and further when the petitioners again wrote to the respondent No. 2 on 25-11-1986 that the earlier letter of the petitioners had not been replied to and in the said letter it was again purported since no import has been arranged till date through the canalising agent, the petitioners expect from the canalising agent that the said canalising agent would release 'No Objection Certificate' to the extent of demand of the petitioners and in reply to the said letter the petitioners were informed that 'No Objection Certificate' for direct import of Re-rollable Scrap was issued only to those parties who had made financial arrangement with the said Corporation within 20th of February, 1986. This letter was written by the respondent No. 2 by letter dated 8-12-1986 in which such stand was taken by the respondent No. 2. In view of the stand taken by the respondent No. 2 that 'No Objection Certificate' would be issued to the petitioners as the petitioners did not make financial arrangement within 28th February, 1986. This was a clear stand taken by the respondent No. 2 in writing and that if it could be established that the petitioners failed to make financial arrangement within 28th February, 1986, if it is required to be done, in that event, the petitioners cannot be entitled to any relief. Regarding the non-making financial arrangement within 28th February, 1986, the respondent No. 2 was refusing the registered requirements of the petitioners, did not make any whisper and it is contrary to state that there was no decision for import of such items during the year 1986-87. Further it appears that the last date for registering the claim was the 28th February, 1987 and the application to make financial arrangement and/or register the claim within 28th February, 1986 is only in respect of the period 1985-86 and not 1986-87. From this it is clear that the respondent No. 2 was also proceeded in the matter from very beginning without any application of mind and did not consider the matter from true perspective. From the facts appearing in this case and from the conduct it is crystal clear that the respondent No. 2 did not act either in terms of para 218 or in terms of para 223 of the Hand Book of Import & Export Procedure for the year 1985-88. Inasmuch as if the stand taken by the respondents are accepted that the items were produced indigenously and available in home market and as such there was no question of import, in that event, according to the para 218, such canalising agent was under statutory obligation and/or duty to try to meet their registered requirements from indigenous sources partly or wholly instead of imports. The admitted fact is that such an affort was (not?) made by the respondent No. 2 which is a clear contravention of the provision of para 218. On the contrary in para 223 the respondent No. 2 has registered the requirements following the procedure laid down in para 223(1)(a) of the Hand Book of the said Procedure under which the canalising agent has to register the demand after scrutinising the application and ask for deposit of the earnest money within 30 days. This was also not done and further in this case the canalising agent was not in a position to make supplies, they had to issue 'No Objection Certificate' in the form prescribed in Appendix IV-B of the said Procedure within 30 days from the date of receipt of requirements. This was also not done. The fact of the case further revealed that by the letter dated 5-1-1985 the respondent No. 2 informed the petitioners that the said respondent No. 2 was unable to issue N.O.C. as there was no plan for import of item in question during the year 1986-87 and consequently no N.O.C. was issued during the said year. The said letter was also silent about its availability in the home market and/or from indigenous sources. The petitioners then moved the monitoring committee by the letter dated 27-12-1986 for appropriate relief, the said monitoring committee was also silent. The petitioners wrote another letter on 15th January, 1987 followed by letter dated 27th March, 1987, 27th May, 1987 and at long last by the letter dated 27th May, 1987, the Deputy Chief Controller of Import & Export Government of India, Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi informed the petitioners that during the year 1986-87 no provision for import of the said item was made after taking into account the indigenous availability of bais and rods in the country from all sources and by letter it was stated that the petitioners should meet the requirements of the item concerned from indigenous sources and for that purpose the petitioners were advised to get in touch with the General Manager, C.M.O. Steel Authority of India, Calcutta. The Steel Authority of India ultimately by the letter dated 8th July, 1987 informed the petitioners that the Steel Authority of India was not doing any canalising from the said materials and the petitioners were directed to approach the respondent No. 2 for the same and the petitioners were requested to contact the respondent No. 2 for the same. After giving consideration to the rival contention of the parties and upto going through the facts of this case, it is clearly evident that the stand of the respondent in this matter was not clear from very beginning and I failed to appreciate the case made out by the respondent in this behalf. If the stand of the respondent is that the requirements of the petitioners would be specified from indigenous sources, in that event, in accordance with the provision contained in para 218 of the said Procedure, it was the statutory duty and/or obligation of the respondent No. 2 being the canalising agent to try to meet the registered requirements of the petitioners from the indigenous sources partly or wholly instead of imports. But unfortunately there was no whisper in any of the letter and/or in the affidavit-in-opposition that the respondent No. 2 being the canalising agent had ever made any attempt and/or tried to meet the requirements from indigenous sou rces and as such the respondent cannot be allowed to take the stand that it had no statutory liability and/or obligation in this matter. If it was available from indigenous sources, the respondent No. 2 should have followed the Procedure laid down in para 218 and that the respondent No. 2 cannot be allowed to contain (contend?) that it has no liability under para 218 or para 223. In this case there were two alternative courses left open to the respondents either to follow para 218 or 223. It is firmly established principle that where a party dealing with another party being at liberty to adopt either of the two mutual exclusive steps, proceedings, courses of action or attitude in relation to the other party, must elect either of the two courses of action. But the said authority cannot remain silent over the matter. When the respondents did not make any attempt or try to meet the registered requirements from indigenous sources, it is well established that under such circumstances, silence or inaction constitutes a representatior as much (as?) positive language or conduct for the purpose of any estoppel. When the respondents have discarded the courses of action as provided under para 218, it cannot refuse to follow the other course of action as provided under another para 223 of the said Procedure. Further in the instant case the respondents did not intimate to the petitioners when the petitioners made application for registering the requirements that the items in question were available from indigenous sources and when the petitioners made repeated requests and representations for issuing of 'No Objection Certificate' in terms of para 223(l)(a), then only after lapse of several months and that too after the expiry of the licensing period made out a case that the same was available from indigenous sources and for that purpose asked the petitioners to approach the Steel Authority of India which in its turn refused to accept any responsibility in the matter. It is clearly established that the respondents in this matter had acted from the very beginning in a manner which is on the face of arbitrary and further when public authorities have taken stand on the face of representation made in the order, such an authority has to justify its action on the basis of the facts disclosed in the order and that it is not open for such an authority to sustain the stand taken by it on some other grounds by some other letters and/or by affidavits. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahender Singh Civil v. Union of India reported in AIR 1978 S.C. 851 wherein the Supreme Court held that the validity of the order must be sustained on the basis of the fact appearing on the order itself and it is not open to such an authority to sustain the validity on the basis of the subsequent fact and/or by affidavit. If according to the respondents the materials in question were available from indigenous sources, in that event, it was their duty to speak out at the very first instance and to inform the petitioners of the same. But on the contrary the petitioners were only informed that there was no decision for import of the said item during the year 1986-87. The respondents cannot avoid its statutory duty and/or responsibility in such a manner which is on the face of unreasonable and contrary to law and that an actual user like that of the petitioner cannot be made because of the whims and caprice and/or inaction on their part. Public authorities are required to act reasonably and they had no unfettered discretion like private/individual. But in the instant case it appears that the respondents has shifted its stand from time to time which cannot be supported. Further, I do not find any bona fide reasons and/or grounds for communicating the petitioners for 'No Objection Certificate' for direct import of Re-Rollable Scrap could be issued by the petitioners as because the petitioners failed to make financial arrangement within 28th February, 1986. This stand is wholly mis-conceived, inasmuch as, the question of financial arrangement is only given in case the application of the petitioners was registered upon scrutiny in terms of para 223 and only after registering the demand after scrutinising such application, the demand for deposit of earnest money can be done within 30 days. In this case such a demand for making deposit of earnest money was not admittedly done and that there was no whisper about making of any financial arrangement for supply by a letter dated 21st of June, 1986. Secondly in the instant case the licensing period is from 1st of April, 1986 to 31st March, 1987 and that the last date according to the rules for registering the requirements and making financial arrangement is the month of February, 1987. So the reasons and/or the grounds disclosed by the respondent asked for not issuing of 'No Objection Certificate' by the letter dated 8-12-1986 is wholly untenable and unacceptable in the facts and circumstances of the Case and in view of the statutory provision made in this behalf. Accordingly I have no other alternative but to hold that the reasons and/or grounds for issuing of 'No Objection Certificate' that the respondent No. 2 was not tenable under the law and in my view, the respondent No. 2 had acted in the matter in a manner which is contrary to the law and failed to discharge its statutory duty imposed under the law. The petitioners cannot be made to suffer because of the lapse and negligence on the part of the respondents concerned. After all every citizen has right to carry on trade or business and that such a right guaranteed under Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India and that such fundamental right cannot be allowed (to be?) invaded by the respondents by such arbitrary and wrongful acts. In my view, the petitioners have been made to suffer because of arbitrary and unreasonable actions on the part of the respondents which are not at all tenable under the law. Purported steps taken by the respondents, in my view, does not appear to be bona fide. The respondent tried to avoid its statutory duty and/or obligation in a manner which has caused a substantial failure of justice, so far as the petitioner is concerned. In my view, it is clear case where the respondent No. 2 failed to act in terms of para 218 of the said Procedure and also in terms of para 223 of the said Procedure by not issuing of 'No Objection Certificate' to the petitioners for the said licensing period and that such right of the petitioners either to get supply from indigenous sources and/or from the canalising agent cannot be denied by the Court in the facts and circumstances of the case. No decision of the Central Government produced in this behalf indicating that the said items were produced indigenously and available in the marke t and at least the Steel Authority of India completely demolished the stand taken by the respondent in this behalf. Accordingly, the respondent No. 2 in the instant case was under a duty to issue 'No Objection Certificate' as admittedly the said respondent failed to supply the same. In accordance with para 223, it is true that the question of 'No Objection Certificate' on proper construction of the said para would only arise in case the requirements of the actual users are scrutinised the application made therefor are registered and demand is made for deposit of earnest money. But in the instant case the application was not registered and demand for earnest money was not made. If in the instant case, the petitioners are not granted any relief on this literal construction at para 223, in that event, in my view, it will lead to an anomalous situation and that would lead to an absurd situation and if the plain and literal meaning of para 223 is given, in that event, that would be a very purpose of incorporation of the rights to get 'No Objection Certificate' would be completely frustrated and nugatory. If the interpretation sought to be put forth by the respondent is accepted that would stultify, purpose of the statute and would definitely produce injustice, absurdity, anomaly and in such circumstances, we have to give a meaning which will make some sense of the enactment otherwise it would result injustice and frustrate the very purpose of such a provision and deny a party of legitimate claim on account of inaction and arbitrary action on the part of the respondent. If the literal meaning is given, the same would lead a plain and clear contradiction of the apparent purpose of the rules and would result of some palpable and evidence absurdity. It is also one of the basic cannon of interpretation of statute that if one interpretation leads to an absurdity and the other does not, the Court will conclude the legislature did not intend to an absurdity and will adopt an interpretation which will not lead to an absurdity. Accordingly, in my view, the failure on the part of the respondent No. 2 to register the application and/or to make any demand for security money did not and could not dis-entitle the petitioners to claim the benefit of the 'No Objection Certificate'.
8. Accordingly the writ petition succeeds. There will be writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to issue 'No Objection Certificate' in the form prescribed in Appendix IV-B of the Hand Book of Import & Export Procedure, 1985-88 entitling the petitioners for grant of import licence in the name of the petitioner No. 1 for direct import of 7700 MT of Re-rollable Scrap as the petitioner is entitled to import as was permissible to be imposed as on 14th July, 1986 on the basis of its registered requirements within a period of 10 days from the date of communication of this order and the respondent No. 3 and 5 are also directed to issue the running import licence according in the name of petitioner No. 1 for the direct import of 7700 MT of Re-rollable Scrap as per policy imposed as on 14th July, 1986. Such Import Licence should be issued within 32 months from today. The rule is made absolute to the extend indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.