Delay and laches defeated the claim for revalidation of import licences and writ relief under Article 32.

Entitlement to revalidation and endorsement of imprest licences for OGL imports was denied because the petitioners waited for an inordinate and unexplained period after completing export obligations and again before filing the writ petition. That delay and laches were treated as independently sufficient to refuse Article 32 relief, and the claimed Article 14 discrimination did not warrant interference. The Court also noted that reliance on earlier proceedings did not assist the petitioners, and the prior dismissal of special leave petitions was not treated as a decision on merits. The writ petition for mandamus therefore failed, while any separate appellate remedy under the policy remained unaffected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to revalidation and endorsement of the imprest licences for import of OGL items, and whether the refusal to interfere under Article 32 was vitiated by discrimination under Article 14.

Analysis: The entitlement claimed under the Import-Export Policy had not been pursued promptly after discharge of the export obligations. The request for revalidation was made after a long and unexplained lapse of time, and the writ petition was also filed after further delay. The Court treated this inordinate delay as independently sufficient to decline relief. The petitioners' reliance on earlier matters was not accepted as a basis for relief, and the prior dismissal of special leave petitions in those matters was not treated as an affirmation on merits. The Court also noted that any appellate remedy under the policy would remain unaffected by the dismissal of the writ petition.

Conclusion: The petition for writ relief was rejected. No interference was called for on account of the petitioners' unexplained delay and laches, and the claim for mandamus to revalidate and endorse the licences failed.

---