AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mukul Mudgal, J.—This is an application by which the petitioner seeks the review of the judgment of this Court dated 5th September, 2001. By the said judgment this Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner where the petitioner had taken mutually contradictory stand for invoking the "Force Majeure Clause" to avoid liabilities arising under the First Come First Serve Scheme of quota entitlement. The judgment noted that the petitioner had for explaining the delay in fulfilling the export obligation on different occasions taken the following pleas:-
a) Communal riots.
b) Cargo backlog at the airport.
c) Factory fire in the supplier''s premises.
It was also held that the fire in the premises of the petitioner''s supplier could not permit the petitioner any cause to invoke the "Force Majeure Clause." The judgment also declined to permit the petitioner to place reliance upon a letter dated 23rd August, 1996 as it was sought to be relied upon only when the matter was being argued in Court.
The petitioner sought review of the judgment primarily on the ground that there were no differing stands adopted by it, and even in the reply to the show cause notice, the plea of fire had been taken. Accordingly on 16th April, 2002 time was granted to the petitioner to satisfy the Court by furnishing the reply to the show cause notice. No such reply was furnished and on the contrary the note Bering the following heading was submitted by the petitioner:
"SUBMISSION OF CLARIFICATION ON THE POINT OF NOT MENTIONING "FIRE BROKE OUT IN THE Factory OF FABRIC PRINTER AT JAIPUR "IN THE LETTER DT. 3.4.90 (ANNEXURE R.1 PAGE 8) OF REPLY FILED BY RESPONDENT ON 23.3.2000."
Thus on his own showing the petitioner was unable to demonstrate to this Court that he had been consistent in the reasons for delay given by him in meeting export obligations or that the ground of the fire had been taken in the reply to the show cause notice.
I am, Therefore, satisfied that the petitioner has been unable to show any ground for review. Accordingly the review application. Normally such a review petition would have warranted imposition of costs but since the petitioner is appearing in person, I decline to do so.