Court lacks authority to unilaterally extend license period beyond fixed duration. Remedies involve fee refunds or compensation.

The High Court held that it lacked the authority to unilaterally extend the period of a license beyond its original fixed duration. Emphasizing judicial self-restraint, the Court stated that remedies for inability to operate during the license period should involve fee refunds or compensation, not extensions. The Court highlighted the separation of powers, citing a previous judgment and distinguishing a Supreme Court decision on mining leases. The single Judge's order for license extension was set aside, directing the administrative body to consider compensation for the petitioner within a specified timeframe.

---

---

Issues:
Extension of period of a license due to transfer, Court's authority to extend license period, Judicial restraint in encroaching into the domain of Executive or Legislature.

Analysis:
The case involved a writ appeal against a single Judge's order regarding the extension of a license period granted for exporting leather and leather products. The license was originally granted for a specific period and subsequently transferred to another entity. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence seized the license on allegations of tampering but later returned it to the original holder. The original holder's request for an extension of the license period was rejected based on policy restrictions on transfer of licenses.

The learned single Judge directed the extension of the license period equivalent to the duration the petitioner was unable to operate. However, the High Court, in its judgment, emphasized that a Court cannot unilaterally extend the period of a license, lease, or grant if it was originally for a fixed duration. The Court clarified that if a licensee was unable to operate for a part of the license period, the appropriate remedy would be a refund of fees or compensation for damages suffered, but not an extension of the license period beyond its stipulated end date.

The High Court cited a previous judgment to reiterate the importance of judicial self-restraint and the limitation on the Court's authority to interfere with decisions within the Executive or Legislative domain. The Court also highlighted a decision by the Delhi High Court, which was not considered binding as the Supreme Court left the question of law open in its dismissal of the case. Additionally, the Court distinguished a Supreme Court decision related to mining lease extension, stating that it was specific to the facts of that case and did not establish a general principle for extending license or lease periods.

Ultimately, the High Court set aside the single Judge's order, emphasizing that the authority to grant or extend licenses lies with the relevant administrative bodies and not the Court. The Court directed the concerned authority to consider appropriate compensation for the petitioner, within a specified timeframe, upon application by the petitioner.

---