The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner was entitled to the relief claimed, as the non-utilization of the quota was attributed to the non-grant of time extension, to which the petitioner was otherwise entitled.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has prayed for issuance of Writ of mandamus, certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the impugned order dated 11. 10. 1993 passed by the Textile Commissioner, Bombay and issuing directions for the release of forfeited 40% amount of Bank Guarantee equivalent to Rs. 1,25,039/- furnished by bank guarantee by the petitioner with respondent no. 2, AEPC, Delhi.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts to comprehend the controversies are that petitioner contended that it is a export company and is engaged in the business of exporting readymade garments and other items to the foreign countries having its registered office at A-4, Nizammudin West, New Delhi and factory at A-18, sector vi, Noida Complex, District Gaziabad, U. P.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT no. 2, AEPC, is an Undertaking of Ministry of Textiles and regulates the export of garments especially Knitwear from India to foreign countries.

( 4 ) IT is the case of the Petitioner that the Ministry of Textiles through its Joint Secretary issued a notification bearing no. 1/4/90-EP (Tandj)I (Apparels) dated 31. 8. 1990 laying down the guidelines under OGL-3 for export of garments and Knitwear from India for the calendar year 1992-93.

( 5 ) THE petitioner applied and obtained Quota with the respondents under the FCFS category for exporting readymade garments. On 22. 1. 1991 the petitioner was allocated the quota vide allocation no. 501657 US/ 336 for 3000 pcs and No. 501658 US/ 336 for 6000 pieces and the said quota was valid upto 10. 3. 1991.

( 6 ) ON 19. 3. 1991 the petitioner applied for change of category from 336 to 636/usa because the importer changed the fabric from cotton to rayon and the permission for the same was granted by the respondent no. 2. Subsequently, the petitioner obtained an extension of 30 days on the validity of quota from AEPC on production of 15% additional Bank Guarantee as a result of which the quota was revalidated upto 10. 4. 1991.

( 7 ) THE petitioner again obtained a 30 days extension upto 10. 5. 1991 from the AEPC by furnishing another additional 15% Bank Guarantee. Thus in total 30% additional Bank guarantee was furnished by the petitioner for utilizing the entitlement certificate. Since the production could not be completed by 10. 5. 91, as the production of the material was not complete in all sizes and colours therefore, the petitioner again sought a further extension of 20 days.

( 8 ) IN the meanwhile the Government vide its Inter Office memo dated 13. 05. 1991 granted a general extension to the validity of certified shipping bills of 1991 FCFS first period quota up to 31. 5. 1991 for which the exporters had already furnished net additional Bank Guarantee of 30%. The petitioner therefore claimed that he was entitled to get the general extension of time up to 31. 5. 1991 as he had already deposited the additional bank guarantee of 30%.

( 9 ) HOWEVER the extension of time on the shipping bills beyond 10. 5. 91 till 31. 5. 1991 was not granted to the petitioner by the AEPC, Madras on the ground of non receipt of clarification regarding submission of 30% of the Bank guarantee by the petitioner to the Delhi office.

( 10 ) THE petitioner brought the said facts to the notice of the respondent no. 2 vide telex-dated 21. 5. 91 but to no avail and the ship sailed on 24. 5. 1991 from the Madras port which was the last date of acceptance of cargo by the importer. The petitioner brought the said facts to the notice of the respondent no. 2 vide letter dated 25. 5. 1991 and thereafter surrendered all the shipping documents in respect to allocation vide letter dated 19. 6. 1991

( 11 ) ON 24. 10. 1991 the petitioner wrote a letter to Chairman, AEPC for release of 30% additional bank guarantee which the petitioner furnished towards allotment of quota in respect of allocation no. 11n-501657 dated 21. 1. 91 category 636 under FCFS. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by respondent no. 2, calling upon him to show as to why