SAWHNEY BROTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN 1996, the petitioner, M/s. Sawhney Brothers had filed the present Petition for the following reliefs:

(2.) AS far as prayer (c) is concerned, the said prayer cannot be granted by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless the petitioner specifically challenges and questions the Order dated 26th September, 1993 passed by the National Commission. The petitioner had approached the National Commission under the Consumer Protection Act making claim of Rs. 1.27 crores on various accounts. The National Commission rejected the said claim Petition on the ground that the petitioner was not "consumer" as the respondent therein were not providing any services for consideration and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Controller of Exports and Imports. It was also noticed that the petitioner had filed appeals against rejection of the claims for grant of licences. In these circumstances, cost of Rs. 10,000/ - was imposed on the petitioner. I do not think this is a fit case in which the Court should interfere and grant any relief to the petitioner in respect of prayer (c).

(3.) IN support of the contention that the petitioner was entitled to Export House Eligibility Certificate, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to two letters dated 10th June, 1991 and 17th July, 1991 written by Federation of Indian Export Organisations. The first letter refers to the hearings before the Grievance Committee to decide the issue regarding issuance of Export House Eligibility Certificate to the petitioner and states that the said issue was taken up in the tenth meeting of the Grievance Committee and the Federation was pleased to inform the petitioner that the Grievance Committee had decided to issue Export House Certificate w.e.f. 1986. The second letter dated 17th July, 1991, was written by the Federation to Chief Controller of Imports and Exports requesting the Grievance Committee to intimate their decision to the concerned authority for expediting issuance of Export House Eligibility Certificate. The stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit is that there was no such assurance and no such decision was taken. Moreover, the Grievance Committee did not have any authority to issue such directions.