The High Court may direct statutory authorities to dispose of pending review petitions within a defined timeframe without adjudicating on the merits of the underlying order.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.04.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No. 16955 of 2026 and W.M.P.No.18262 and 18264 of 2026 M/s.Unilink Pharma Private Limited, Rep.by its Director, Mr.S.Karunakaran, 23/11, Parthasarathypuram, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

...Petitioner Vs.

1.The Zonal Additional Director General of Foreign Trade (Appellate Authority), Office of the Zonal Additional DGFT, 4^th Floor, Shastri Bhawan Annexe, 26, Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006.

2.The Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, (Adjudicating Authority), Office of the Zonal Additional DGFT, 4th Floor, Shastri Bhawan Annexe, 26, Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006.

3.The Director General of Foreign Trade, Vanijya Bhawan, 16, Akbar Road, New Delhi-110 011.

...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order-in-original No.CHNECAAPPLY00000782AM24 dated 02.11.2023 passed by the second respondent and the Order-in-Appeal No.CHNECAAPPEAL00002026AM24 dated 27.03.2024 passed by the first respondent, and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the respondents to consider the documents submitted for the Advance Authorisation No:0410156061 dated 11.03.2014 and forthwith remove the petitioner’s Importer-Exporter Code (IEC) No.0404032214 from the Denied Entity List (DEL) and further direct the third respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s review petition filed under Section 16 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Suresh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.V.Chandrasekaran

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order-in-original No.CHNECAAPPLY00000782AM24 dated 02.11.2023 passed by the second respondent and the Order-in-Appeal No.CHNECAAPPEAL00002026AM24 dated 27.03.2024 passed by the first respondent and for a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the documents submitted for the Advance Authorisation No:0410156061 dated 11.03.2014 and forthwith remove the petitioner’s Importer-Exporter Code (IEC) No.0404032214 from the Denied Entity List (DEL) and further direct the third respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s review petition filed under Section 16 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Private Limited Company and exporting medical products. The petitioner was imposed penalty by the Original Authority vide order dated 02.11.2023, against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent with delay. However, the first respondent refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal vide impugned order dated 27.03.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review petition under Section 16 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 before the third respondent on 24.10.2025, however, the same is pending without any consideration. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that against the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner filed review petition before the third respondent on 24.10.2025, but the same has not been considered so far. However, it would be suffice if this Court directs the third respondent to consider the review petition filed by the petitioner on 24.10.2025 and pass appropriate orders.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the responden