The central legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary power of the respondent to grant exemption from policy provisions and waiver of penalty in cases of hardship, and the importance of considering the fulfillment of contractual obligations by the petitioner after the stay was vacated.

( 1 ) RULE. WITH the consent of the parties, writ petition was taken up for hearing on 15. 7. 2002. Counsel for the parties were heard and judgment was reserved.

( 2 ) THE petitioner by this petition seeks quashing of the impugned order/letter dated 13/25. 4. 2000, by which the respondents rejected the petitioner s request for waiver of 1% penalty for extension of the export obligation period, in the Special Imprest Licence No. P/l/0090716 dated 22. 4. 1998. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to revalidate the Special Imprest licence No. P/l/0090716, without charging any composition fee or penalty. Petitioner, in addition, seeks extension of the stipulated time for the performance of the deemed export obligation under the licence. The prayer is also made to direct the respondents to treat the period, during 16. 4. 1998 to 17. 9. 1999, when the stay order passed by this Court was operational, as not applicable for calculating the period of 18 months granted under the licence for the performance of the deemed obligations.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case may be briefly stated. Bids had been invited by Syndicate Bank for the supply of UPS systems under world Bank, aided project for computerization of the nationalized banks. The petitioner was declared the successful bidder and was awarded the contract for supply of 33nos. UPS systems. Petitioner applied for and was granted the Special Imprest Licence no. P/l/0090716, under the Exim Policy for importing components of the aforesaid UPS system without payment of Customs Duty. The supplies of UPS systems were required to be completed before 21. 10. 1999. Petitioner by August 1998, offered for inspection 21 UPS sets to Syndicate Bank for whom the goods had been imported. One M/s Vinitec electronics Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as M/s Vinitec) questioned and challenged the award of contract to the petitioner in writ petition bearing No. 1769/1998 filed in this Court. The petitioner as well as the Union of India, were impleaded as respondents in the said writ petition. By an interim order dated 16. 4. 1998, the parties to the petition were directed to maintain status quo. The order appears at page 21 of the paper book. The writ petition was eventually dismissed on 19. 8. 1999. The Court while dismissing the petition noted that the petitioner in the said writ petition, namely, M/s Vinitec had not challenged the letter by which its bid or tender was rejected. Rather the challenge was made to the award of contract to the present petitioner i. e. M/s. Next Generation Business Power Systems ltd. , on the ground that it was the highest bidder and was a company incorporated only two years before the relevant date without any manufacturing facility. The Court repelled the contention that the present petitioner did not meet the eligibility conditions. The activity of the petitioner in assembling the CKD s with value additions, was held to be "manufacture" within the meaning of the bid. Rather the Court dismissed the said petition also on the ground that the petitioner therein i. e. M/s. Vinitec had failed to challenge rejection of its bid and hence did not have the locus to question the award of the contract to the present petitioner.

( 4 ) MR. SUDHIR Nandrajog, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that petitioner was prevented only on account of the order of status quo granted by this Court from executing the contract. The order remained in operation from 16. 4. 1998 to 19. 8. 1999. It is a well settled principle of law that no individual should suffer on account of the act of the Court. M/s. Next Generation Business power Systems Ltd. , had the means and had taken all steps for supply of the UPS systems but could not do so because of the status quo order granted by this Court. He makes a fervent plea that the petitioner should not be made to suffer or subjected to any penalty or composition fee as is sought to be imposed by the respondents as a pre-co