Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

( 1 )

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent accepts notice of rule.

( 3 ) WITH the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is take up for final disposal.

( 4 ) M/s Mangali Ceramics Limited was a limited company which had a certificate of importer/exporter dated 12,5. 2000 issued from file No. 05/04/130/00748 /am93 dated 04. 06. 1992 and was assigned 1kc No. 0592005372. The petitioner along with the requisite documents" filed an application dated 19. 6. 2004 for allotment of the said code to the petitioner. This was naturally done with the consent of M/s Mangali Ceramics limited.

( 5 ) THE petitioner did not receive any response and sent a reminder dated 5. 8. 2003 followed by reminders dated. 25. 8. 2003 and 10. 9. 200:?. It may be mentioned that in the letter dated 25. 8. 2003, the petitioner had mentioned that they have come to know that application of the petitioner was not processed on some misapprehension of a wrongful claim oi dkpb the letter categorically states that the petitioner had not availed of DKPB facility.

( 6 ) SINCE the petitioner did not receive any response, the present wnt, petition was filed seeking a direction against the respondents to allot the said code to the petitioner.

( 7 ) IN the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the code eould not be issued due to the fact that one of the Directors of the petitioner Stiri dharam Pal Goel was also Director in another company M/s Mangali impex Limited of the same address and was placed on the Denied Entity list (DEL) as their case was investigated by DRI and the report received indicated that the said concern had obtained a DEPB against fraudulent export of goods by mis-declaring description of the goods as well as the value to claim undue benefit under the DEPB scheme.

( 8 ) THE counter-affidavit states that application of the petitioner was thus not considered in view of the provisions of Foreign trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ) framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 19 of the Foreign Trade (Development and regulation) Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The relevant rule 7 deals with refusal of licence and the same is as under:

"7. Refusal of licence - (1) The Director General or the licensing authority may for reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to grant or renew a licence (f) the applicant is or was a managing partner in a partnership firm, or is or was a Director of a private limited company, having controlling interest against which any action is for the time being pending under the Act or rules and orders made thereunder;"

( 9 ) IT is under the aforesaid Rule that the petitioner has been denied transfer of the Code.

( 10 ) IN the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, it has been stated that the allegation against M/s Mangali Impex Limited relates to the period of january 1999. Shri Dharam Pal Goel was not even a Director of the said company since he became Director only on 31. 12. 1999 and ceased to be the director in July, 2003. It is further stated that even when Shri Goel was director in M/s Mangali Impex Limited, he did not hold any share in the said company and he was made Director to fill quorum of the company. It has been categorically stated that it is for the first time that the petitioner company has come to know about the aforesaid action since no order has been communicated to the petitioner company.

( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends on the basis of the pleadings that the question of application of Rule 7 (l) (f) of the Rules does not arise in the present case as requirement of the said Rule is that the person should be a Director and should further have controlling interest. It is stated that since Shri Goel was not even a shareholder or a Managing director, there can be no question of any controlling interest of Shri Goel in M/s Mangali Impex Limited. It is further stated that the requirement "or is or was" fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document