Court quashes orders, remands for revalidation, cites Handbook of Procedure. Fresh orders within 3 months.

The Court quashed the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the respondents to reconsider the revalidation request in line with para 125 of the Handbook of Procedure 1992-97. The Court directed fresh orders to be issued within three months, clarifying that it did not express an opinion on the justification or merit of the extension request. The writ petition was disposed of without costs.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Request for endorsement of transferability of licenses.
2. Rejection of revalidation of licenses.
3. Interpretation of Para 125 and 127(v) of the Handbook of Procedure 1992-97.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner exported hand-pumps to UNICEF and was issued duty free advance licenses. The petitioner requested the transferability of four licenses, which was examined and endorsed in accordance with para 127 of the Handbook 1992-1997.

2. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for revalidation of the licenses for an extended period, which was rejected by the respondents citing the absence of a provision in the EXIM Policy 1992-97 for revalidation of licenses with transferability. The petitioner relied on para 125 of the Handbook, while the respondents referred to para 127(v) of the Handbook.

3. Para 125 allows revalidation of licenses for up to one year from the expiry date, with discretion for further revalidation in exceptional cases. It does not differentiate between transferable and non-transferable licenses. On the other hand, para 127(v) deals with the transferability of licenses and prescribes the validity period post-transfer, emphasizing that no revalidation should have been availed for the extended validity of six months to apply.

4. The Court found that para 125 grants the Regional Licensing Authority the discretion to consider revalidation requests, irrespective of the transferability status of the license. Para 127(v) specifically addresses the validity period post-transfer, ensuring that revalidated licenses maintain their original validity period without the benefit of an additional six months if revalidation had been previously availed.

5. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned orders, remanded the matter to the respondents to reconsider the revalidation request in line with para 125, and directed fresh orders to be issued within three months. It was clarified that the Court did not express an opinion on the justification or merit of the extension request, and the writ petition was disposed of without costs.

---