JUDGMENT

VENKATACHALIAH, J. :— By this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution. Messrs. Rup Diamonds, a Registered Export House, assail the validity of the decisions dated9-4-1986 and5-8-1986 of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports declining to re-validate and endorse six Imprest Licences for import of Open General Licence items upon the fulfilment by the petitioners of their export obligations under the Imprest Licences. Petitioners seek issue of appropriate writs to the Authorities to re-validate the six Imprest Licences, with appropriate endorsement for the import of Open General items under the Import Export Policy of 1982-83 (A-M 1983).

2. This writ petition came up for preliminary hearing along with Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 2579 of 1987 and 2580 of 1987 preferred by the Union of India seeking leave to appeal from two Judgments of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in two other cases.

3. Petitioners are a recognised Export House for purposes of the Import-Export Policy, 1982-83. They applied for, and were granted, six imprest licences; (1) 2932347 dated 31-7-1982 for CIF value of Rs. 65,28,500/-., (2) 293259 dated 20-8-1982 for Rs. 1, 14,49,263/-; (3) 0470538 dated 11-5-1982 for Rs. 1,43,76,770/-; (4) 0449604 dated 12-5-1981 for Rs. 1,32,39,130/-, (5) 0468397 dated 16-4-1982 for Rs. 5,21,747/-; and (6) 2927607 dated 29-4-1980 for Rs. 1,47,16,238/ for the import of uncut and unset diamonds with the obligation to fulfil certain export commitment for the export, out of India. of cut and polished diamonds of the FOB value, stipulated in each of the imprest licences. Petitioners claim that, pursuant to the said imprest licences, they had imported uncut and unset diamonds and had also discharged their export obligations by exporting cut and polished diamonds of the requisite value as evidenced by the Redemption Certificates which are annexed as annexure V to the memorandum of writ petition.

4. Petitioners claim that in terms 0f para 185(4) of Import-Export Policy, 1982-83, they were entitled to the facility for the import if OGL items as is available in the case of replenishment licences issued to export houses under clauses (1) and (3) of para 185 of A-M 1983 Policy. Paragraph 185 (4) of the AM 1983 provided:

(4) The facility for import of OGL items available in sub-para (3) above, may also be allowed, on merits, to Export Houses against their advance/imprest licences on account of which they are rendered ineligible to obtain R P licence. In such cases, however, the value upto which the OGL import may be allowed, will not exceed the value to which the Export House would have been eligible to the REP licence, had he not obtained advance/ imprest licence in question. This facility will be available to the Export House after he has discharged the export obligation imposed on the advance/imprest licence. Therefore, if by the time. the Export House becomes eligible to this facility, the advance/imprest licence has expired. or, if the original validity left unused by that time is less than six months, the licensing authority will revalidate the licence simultaneously so as to give to the licence-holder a time of six months for the purpose of importing OGL item under this facility.

5. However, the petitioners did not bestir themselves to seek the revalidation and endorsement for OGL items for quite some time thereafter. It was only in the year 1986 they sought such revalidation, and endorsement. That was after a lapse of several years from the completion of their export obligations. The Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports by his two decisions. one dated S.1986 pertaining to the Imprest Licence2927607 dated 29-4-1980 and the other dated 9-4-1986, pertaining to the other five Imprest Licences declined the request. These two orders are challenged in the writ petition.

6. The grounds for refusal in both the decisions are similar, except for the reference to certain relevant dates.