Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. He also drew the attention of this Court to the following orders/circulars issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology(MEITY), Government of India; and Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DEITY)

(a) Compulsory Registration Order (CRO), 2012, dated 07.09.2012, issued by MEITY;

(b) Circular No.1 of 2013, dated 29.05.2013, issued by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DEITY), Government of India.

(c) CRO, 2021, dated 18.03.2021, issued by MEITY; and

(d) Amendment Notification dated 01.07.2021 issued by MEITY.

__________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 03:46:26 pm ) WP No. 29418 of 2024 etc (batch)

14. Mr.K.Srinivasa Murthy, learned SPC, also drew the attention of this Court to CRO of the years 2012 and 2021, as well as the Amended Notification dated 01.07.2021 issued by MEITY, and the amendment made to Para 2.31 of the FTP, 2023, and would submit that since prior authorisation was not obtained by the petitioners as per the aforesaid Notifications, goods in question are not freely importable. He has also relied upon various paragraphs in the counter affidavit filed by MEITY before this Court in these writ petitions.

20. It is also to be noted that in a recent order passed by the Telangana High Court in W.P.No.11714 of 2025, dated 17.04.2025, which was placed on record by Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, learned Senior counsel, appearing for some of the writ petitioners, the Telangana High Court had granted provisional release of MFDs, and in the said writ petition, MEITY was arrayed as the first respondent. Therefore, it may not be correct on the part of MEITY to contend that MEITY was not a party to the provisional release orders.