Court dismisses appeal, upholds relief for respondents, orders revalidation of license, and directs appellants to pay costs.

The court dismissed the appeal, upheld the respondents' entitlement to relief on merits, and ruled out delay as a valid ground for denying relief. The operative order was modified to align with Supreme Court directives, requiring the revalidation of the imprest licence and necessary endorsements within three months. The appellants were also directed to pay the costs of the respondents.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to relief on merits.
2. Delay in applying for revalidation and endorsement of OGL.
3. Delay in approaching the court under writ jurisdiction.
4. Correctness of the operative order passed by the Single Judge.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Relief on Merits:
The respondents, a sole proprietary concern engaged in the export of diamonds, were recognized as an export house under the Import Policy of April to March 1982-83. They were issued an imprest licence on February 7, 1983, for importing uncut and unset diamonds, with an obligation to export goods worth Rs. 54,88,769/-. After fulfilling their export obligations on August 14, 1983, they sought a redemption certificate, which was granted on October 20, 1983. Subsequently, they applied for revalidation of the licence and endorsement for importing OGL items on November 30, 1984. However, the Joint Chief Controller rejected their application on December 14, 1984, citing the absence of provisions for such endorsements in the 1983-84 and 1984-85 policy periods. The respondents challenged this decision, and the court acknowledged that the respondents were entitled to relief on merits based on several Supreme Court decisions.

2. Delay in Applying for Revalidation and Endorsement of OGL:
The appellants argued that the respondents delayed applying for revalidation and OGL endorsement, which should preclude them from relief. The imprest licence was issued on February 7, 1983, and the export obligation was completed on August 14, 1983. The redemption certificate was issued on October 20, 1983, but the application for revalidation was filed on November 30, 1984. The court noted that the Joint Chief Controller did not reject the application based on delay but on policy grounds. It was emphasized that reasons for rejecting an application must be explicitly stated and cannot be supplemented later. The court found no evidence that the delay was intended to secure undue advantage and ruled that the delay in applying for revalidation and endorsement was not a valid ground to deny relief.

3. Delay in Approaching the Court under Writ Jurisdiction:
The appellants contended that the respondents approached the court after considerable delay, which should lead to the refusal of relief. The court acknowledged that while delay could be a ground for refusing relief, it must be examined if the delay remains unexplained. The respondents filed their writ petition on February 18, 1985, shortly after their application was rejected on December 14, 1984. The court noted that the respondents' entitlement accrued in 1983 and had been postponed for several years. The learned Single Judge had already imposed a penalty by reducing the benefit by 25% and awarding costs of Rs. 2500/-. The court found no substantial delay in approaching the writ court and ruled that the respondents could not be denied relief on this ground.

4. Correctness of the Operative Order Passed by the Single Judge:
The appellants argued that the operative order by the Single Judge required modification, particularly the direction allowing import of OGL items under Paragraph 185 of the 1982-83 policy, excluding items banned under the current policy. The court agreed that the order needed modification to align with Supreme Court directives, allowing import of items permissible under the OGL list of the 1982-83 policy and those permissible at the time of actual import. The court modified the operative order to reflect this and directed the appellants to revalidate the imprest licence and make requisite endorsements within three months.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, upheld the entitlement of the respondents to relief on merits, and ruled out delay as a valid ground for denying relief. The operative order was modified to ensure compliance with Supreme Court directives, and the appellants were directed to revalidate the imprest licence and make the necessary endorsements within three months. The appellants were also ordered to pay the costs of the respondents.

---