PADAM EXPORTS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the petitioner who appears in person at length. This is the second occasion when the petitioner has approached the Delhi High Court. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition in 1998 claiming compensation of Rs. 98,35,878/- with interest for failure of the respondent-authorities to issue value based advance licences in terms of Export and Import Policy for the year 1993-94. This Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and the Order was upheld in LPA No. 187/2002. The Division Bench noticed that the petitioner had alleged delay in processing of his applications for issue of export licences and alleged resultant loss. It was held that the writ jurisdiction was not correctly invoked and the controversy raised could be appropriately resolved in a regular suit.

(2.) The petitioner thereafter filed a review application which was dismissed and a Special Leave Petition against the said orders passed by the Division Bench. Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

(3.) The petitioner has filed a suit for recovery before the High Court of Bombay. It appears that the petitioner has been making number of applications for notice of motion in the said suit and on being unsuccessful and faced with an adverse order had filed appeals. Respondents in the counter affidavit have set out in detail, orders passed by the Bombay High Court. They have also enclosed copy of order dated 6th July, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petitioner's application for interim compensation/damages.