Natural justice and no implied review power led to quashing of cancellation and debarment orders after export obligations were met.

An administrative authority had no implied power under the governing policy to review and cancel its earlier order, so the cancellation lacked authority. The cancellation was also invalid because it was made without hearing the affected parties, breaching natural justice. Further, once the export obligation had already been fully discharged, including within the extended period granted, the later debarring order had no sustainable basis and could not stand. The impugned orders were quashed and the petitions were allowed with the substantive reliefs sought.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the authority had power under the relevant policy to review and cancel its earlier order; (ii) Whether the cancellation order was vitiated for want of hearing to the petitioners; (iii) Whether the impugned debarring order could stand after the export obligation had already been fully discharged.

Issue (i): Whether the authority had power under the relevant policy to review and cancel its earlier order.

Analysis: The policy clause relied upon did not confer any general power of review on the second and third respondents to reopen and cancel their own earlier order. The language of the clause was treated as limited and not wide enough to justify review.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was without authority and could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the cancellation order was vitiated for want of hearing to the petitioners.

Analysis: It was an admitted position that the petitioners were not heard before the earlier order was cancelled. The absence of a hearing went to the root of the matter and attracted the requirements of natural justice.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was invalid for breach of natural justice.

Issue (iii): Whether the impugned debarring order could stand after the export obligation had already been fully discharged.

Analysis: The export obligation had already been completed, including within the extended period granted by the authorities, before the later order of cancellation. In that situation, the subsequent order debarring the petitioners from further licence benefits had no sustainable basis.

Conclusion: The debarring order was unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: Both petitions succeeded and the impugned orders were quashed, with the petitions allowed in terms of the substantive reliefs sought.

Ratio Decidendi: An administrative authority cannot review and cancel its own order in the absence of express power under the governing policy, and such cancellation is further vitiated when made without hearing the affected party and after the underlying obligation has already been fully discharged.

---