Petitioner Granted Relief under Article 226: Online SEIS Application Allowed, FTP Scheme Deadline Extended

The court granted the Petitioner's request for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, allowing them to file an online application for SEIS benefits and other schemes by a specified date. The court extended the deadline for submitting applications for Scrip based FTP Schemes and acknowledged the unique reliefs sought by the Petitioner compared to other writ petitions. Both parties were given timelines to file necessary documents, with the court emphasizing that outcomes would be subject to ongoing proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Relief sought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Extension of deadline for submitting applications for Scrip based FTP Schemes.
3. Petitioner seeking additional reliefs compared to other writ petitions.
4. Request for time to file an affidavit-in-reply.
5. Decision on allowing the Petitioner to file an online application for benefits.
6. Timeline for filing affidavit-in-reply and rejoinder.

Analysis:
1. The Petitioner sought various reliefs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Counsel highlighted a previous order allowing the Petitioner to file an online application for SEIS benefits by a specified date, subject to pending writ petitions.

2. The Counsel for the Petitioner referred to a notification extending the deadline for submitting applications for Scrip based FTP Schemes until a later date. The Petitioner aimed to benefit from one of the schemes mentioned in this notification and requested a similar order from the court to submit the application by the extended deadline.

3. The Petitioner's Counsel pointed out that the reliefs sought in the present writ petition were partly different from those in other writ petitions. The court acknowledged this distinction.

4. The Respondent's Counsel sought time to file an affidavit-in-reply, which the court considered without prejudice to either party. The court intended to protect the interests of both parties by passing an order similar to a previous one in related writ petitions.

5. The court allowed the Petitioner to file an online application for SEIS and other benefits mentioned in the petition. It was clarified that such applications would be processed according to the law, with outcomes subject to the ongoing writ petition.

6. A timeline was set for the Respondents to file an affidavit-in-reply and for the Petitioner to provide a rejoinder, ensuring both parties had the opportunity to present their arguments before the court. Additionally, the court directed the Respondents to accept the Petitioner's online application by a specified date, keeping the eligibility issue open for further consideration.

This detailed analysis covers the various issues addressed in the judgment, outlining the legal arguments presented by both parties and the court's decisions on each matter.

---