Mr. Anil Dev Singh, J. ( 1 ) RULE D. B. This is a writ petition which calls in question the letter dated 13/05/1993of Controller of Imports and Exports whereby the request of the petitioner for grantof Value Based Licence was rejected. ( 2 ) THE petitioner deals in exports of frozen marine products. The petitionersays that for export of the marine products it requires imported packing materialas well as consumables. It also avers that by virtue of Public Notice No. 2/92-97dated 31/03/1992 (Annexure P-2 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent,value based advance import licence could be claimed both on the basis of quantityand value of export. According to Annexure P-2, extract of the Public Notice, theadvance licence could be granted on the basis of Value Addition of 1000% againstexport of frozen marine products. ( 3 ) THE petitioner further says that on 8/08/1992 it applied for grant ofvalue based licence for Rs-42. 84 lakhs against an export obligation of Rs. 3 crores. Thus claiming advance licence on the basis of Value Addition of 600%. Accordingto the petitioner the Advance Licencing Committee at its meeting held on 11/06/1992 with respondent No. 2 fixed norms at 600% for both packing material andconsumables for frozen marine products in the case of M/s. Adani Exports. On theanalogy of this case, the petitioner avers it was fully entitled to similar benefit. Thepetitioner further says that it had exported marine products in the hope that therespondents would act upon their policy and grant duty free licence on the valueof the exports. The petitioner states that it had sent various reminders andrepresentations to the respondents for the grant of the value based advance importlicence for CIF value of Rs. 42,84,000. 00. ( 4 ) BY a communication dated 13/05/1993 the petitioner was informed bythe 2nd respondent that his request for the grant of said advance import licence hasbeen rejected. The contents of the letter are as under:- "with reference to your letter No. REP/lnb:sd dated 8-8-92 on the subjectmentioned above, I am to inform you that your case has been consideredvery carefully in this office but it is regretted that the same stands rejected asper the current policy grant of only qty. based advance licence can beconsidered under production programme and value addition offered is on alower side. " ( 5 ) IT is this letter which has been impugned in the writ petition. based advance licence can beconsidered under production programme and value addition offered is on alower side. " ( 5 ) IT is this letter which has been impugned in the writ petition. Learnedcounsel for the petitioner submitted that the rejection of the petitioner s claims wasin violation of the policy which came into force on 1/04/1992 for aperiod of 5years. He further submits that according to public notice dated 31/03/1992 thepetitioner was entitled to import of packing material and consumables, and therespondents were bound to grant the advance import licence for the same on thebasis of the Value Addition on the principle of equitable estoppel as the petitioneracting on the policy of the Government had made exports. He further submittedthat in the case of. M/s-Adani Exports the Advance Licencing Committee andrespondent No. 2 had fixed the norms at 600% for import of both packing materialand consumables. But the same treatment was not meted out to the petitioner. Learned Counsel also asserted that the policy to grant value based advance licencewas very much in vogue and the second respondent was not right in rejecting therequest of the petitioner for grant of the licence on the ground that according to thecurrent policy a request could be made only for quantity based advance licence. Learned Counsel asserted that if that was so, there was no reason for the saidrespondent to state in the impugned letter that the value offered was on the lowerside. He also pointed out that besides M/s. Adani Exports, M/s. Cham Ice and Coldstorage was also granted advance licence with Value Addition of 600%. Thisaccording to the learned Counsel was discriminatory. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that theinput - output and Value Addition norms published on 31/03/1992 were subjectto revision and when the application of the petitioner dated 8/08/1992 ( filedon 14/08/1992) for grant of advance import licence was moved, norms for allthe items applied for had not been published. Learned Counsel pointed out that thenorms were subsequently published on 25/09/1992. He has furthercontended that the Advance Licencing Committee and respondent No. 2 had fixedthe norm at 600% for import of packing material and consumables in the individualcase of M/s. Adani Exports. He asserted that the Advance Licensing Committeedecides each and every case on its own merits. Learned Counsel pointed out that thenorms were subsequently published on 25/09/1992. He has furthercontended that the Advance Licencing Committee and respondent No. 2 had fixedthe norm at 600% for import of packing material and consumables in the individualcase of M/s. Adani Exports. He asserted that the Advance Licensing Committeedecides each and every case on its own merits. Learned Counsel drawing strengthfrom the averments made in para 19 of the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of therespondents, submitted that the case of M/s. Adani Exports was reviewed and ashow-cause notice has been given to it. Besides, since the petitioner did not offerthe minimum Value Addition of 1000% in its application for grant of value basedadvance import licence, the request was rejected. The learned Counsel lastlysubmitted that the principles of promissory estoppel are not attracted in the presentcase. ( 7 ) WE have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties. Aperusal of the impugned letter shows that there has been no proper application ofmind by the respondents to the request of the petitioner for grant of value basedadvance import licence. On the one hand it is stated in the letter that as per the current policy grant of quantity based advance licence can only be considered buton the other hand it is stated that "value Addition offered is on a lower side". If thepolicy for grant of value based licence had been scrapped, then there was no reasonto state in the letter that Value Addition offered by the petitioner was on the lowerside. The letter is cryptic and contradictory. The reasons for rejecting thepetitioner s request are not adequate and leave much to be desired. The matterrequires fresh consideration by the respondents in the light of the points raised bythe petitioner. It will be for the respondents to consider all aspects of the matter andrender a fresh decision by means of a speaking order, giving proper reasons for thesame. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY the letter dated 13/05/1993 is quashed and respondents aredirected to consider the matter afresh and pass a reasoned order setting out indetail the points raised by the petitioner and its decision thereon. It will be open tothe petitioner to file a further representation taking such points as may be availableto it under law within two weeks from today. It will be open tothe petitioner to file a further representation taking such points as may be availableto it under law within two weeks from today. On receipt of the representation anda copy of this order, the second respondent/advance Licensing Committee (HQ) will render its decision expeditiously not later than two months.