$~72.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4786/2011 & CM No.11447/2011 (for condonation of delay).
BISHAN SAROOP RAM KISHAN AGRO PVT. LTD. .... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Atul Nanda, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Siddharth Singla, Ms. Rameeza
Hakeem, Mr. Rajat Brar & Mr. Anvit
Jain, Adv.
versus
AGRICULTURAL AND PROCESSED FOOD PRODUCTS
EXPORT DEV. AUTHORITY AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sachin Datta with Mr.
Abhimanyu Kumar, Adv. for R-1
along with Mr. Naveen Sharma,
(DM), APEDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 08.08.2011
1. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.1 Agricultural and
Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) states
that the petitioner has been de-registered for an attempt to export Non-
Basmati Rice and consignment in which regard was confiscated by the
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Lucknow.
2. The respondent no.1 APEDA to file a better affidavit along with all
the documents on the basis whereof satisfaction was reached that the
petitioner was guilty of the export for which it has been de-registered. The
W.P.(C) No. 4786/2011 Page 1 of 4
same be filed within one week.
3. The counsel for the respondent no.1 states that DRI would be a
necessary and property party. He seeks impleadment of DRI which would be
in possession of the entire record in this regard.
4. The senior counsel for the petitioner opposes the impleadment of DRI
stating that the respondent no.1 APEDA could not have acted at the behest
of the DRI.
5. Since the allegations against the petitioner are grave and the
investigating agency is DRI which would be in the possession of entire
record, this Court feels that the petitioner should not derive any benefit of
technicalities and it is expedient that all the records are placed before this
Court for this Court to find out whether there is any merit in the conclusion
on the basis whereof the petitioner has been de-registered.
6. Accordingly, DRI is impleaded as the respondent no.3. The petitioner
to serve the nominated counsel for DRI. The counsel for the respondent no.1
APEDA to also inform the nominated counsel for DRI and the entire record
of DRI be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing.
7. At this stage, the senior counsel for the petitioner on instructions
states that without conferring any right on the petitioner to export, the matter
may be remanded to the respondent no.1 APEDA for decision afresh after
W.P.(C) No. 4786/2011 Page 2 of 4
furnishing to the petitioner the entire record from DRI on the basis whereof
the decision has been taken and giving an opportunity to the petitioner to
respond thereto.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed with the following
directions:-
a) The respondent no.1 APEDA to within two weeks hereof furnish
to the petitioner the entire material in its power and possession for
reaching the decision impugned in this petition;
b) It is clarified that the respondent no.1 APEDA shall be entitled to
call for further material from DRI and to furnish the same to the
petitioner;
c) The petitioner to within one week thereafter file its response
thereto;
d) The petitioner to appear before the respondent no.1 APEDA for
hearing on 5th September, 2011 at 1100 hours and on such
subsequent dates as may be necessary;
e) The respondent no.1 APEDA to pass a fresh reasoned order
dealing with the contentions of the petitioner on or before 20 th
September, 2011 and to communicate the same to the petitioner;
f) If the petitioner remains aggrieved, the petitioner shall have
W.P.(C) No. 4786/2011 Page 3 of 4
remedies in law;
g) Till the decision as aforesaid, the bar on the petitioner from
exporting to continue.
No order as to costs.
Dasti.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,J
AUGUST 08, 2011
pp..
W.P.(C) No. 4786/2011 Page 4 of 4