Devinder Gupta ( 1 ) THE petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus against the respondents in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing them to entertain his application dated 25. 1 1. 1991 for grant of Manufacturers Export Entitlement. Quota (for short the quota ) and grant the same as per his entitlement. ( 2 ) IT is alleged that the petitioner is one of the manufacturer exporter of wooven ready-made garments and is a duty registered firm with the Direct orate of Industries under small scale industries. Petitioner is also registered with the Textile Commissioner and with the Apparel Export Promotion Council (for short the council ). On 14. 10,1991 under policy for distribution of garment export quota for 1992 a circular was issued by the office of Textile Commissioner inviting applications for the Quota for 1992. Last date for the receipt of applications was 15. 11. 1991. Due to various reasons which have been stated in petition, it is alleged that the application could not be submitted in time by the petitioner. Rather ;t was submitted 10 days after the last date fixed for the purpose. It is alleged that in same of the cases applications received upto 18. 11. 1991 were considered and till 8. 1. 1992 some exporters were also permitted to complete their applications which earlier were incomplete but the petitioner s application was not considered. Thus, it is claimed that the petitioner was denied an equal opportunity in claiming the Quota and ultimately the Quota itself. ( 3 ) THE respondents have contested the petition by filing their reply on the affidavit, of Govind Frasad Modhwal, Asstt. Director of the Council. It is stated that the Manufacturer Exporter Quota for 1992 was duly made" known to all concerned by a press note dated 14. 10. 1991. Later on the Council by its circular merely reminded the manufacturer exporters about the last date of submission of the applications otherwise it was through a press note dated 14. 10. 1991 that due intimation was given to all/concerned. It also appeared as a news item in Financial Express in its issue on 17. 10. 1991. Last date" of receipt of application was 15. 11. 1991 but due to cyclone in southern part of the country, all the flights going to Bombay were cancelled on 15. 11. 1991. 10. 1991 that due intimation was given to all/concerned. It also appeared as a news item in Financial Express in its issue on 17. 10. 1991. Last date" of receipt of application was 15. 11. 1991 but due to cyclone in southern part of the country, all the flights going to Bombay were cancelled on 15. 11. 1991. Since the applications were to be submitted in the office of Textile Commissioner - at Bombay, time for submitting applications, keeping m View the extraordinary circumstances in Southern region, was extended upto 18. 1 1. 1991 which in the facts was considered to be reasonable since 16th and 17th November, 1991 happened to be closed days. Therefore, all applications, from all over the country, received upto 18. 11. 1991 were directed to be considered on merits. Many exporters had approached the Ministry of. Textile and pointed out their difficulties that on account of aforementioned extraordinary conditions, though applications had been submitted by them, but supporting documents and other requirements could not be carried out, therefore, they be permitted further time to furnish the requisite documents. The matter was duly considered by the Ministry and it. was decided that an opportunity be granted to all those exporters, who had made applications in time and who could not furnish proper documents earlier, that their shortcomings be made good upto 8th January, 1992. Petitioner cannot claim any discrimination since he had not forwarded his application till 18. 11. 1991. In fact it is alleged that the petitioner, came with false facts by misquoting the date of his application. Quota is a saleable commodity. Petitioner could have availed the Quota under the Past Performance Entitlement system and also in the open market. Even under another scheme, i. e. , First Come First Served system, quota was available and the petitioner could have made application under that scheme also. It is also alleged that the quota allotment is finalised by Textile Commissioner, Bombay, and since petitioner s claim is for Quota for 1992, no balance as of today is available for allotment and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any claim. ( 4 ) WHEN the petition was called for hearing, none appeared for the petitioner. Mr. Rawal appeared for the respondent, who has taken me through the entire documents and the pleadings. ( 4 ) WHEN the petition was called for hearing, none appeared for the petitioner. Mr. Rawal appeared for the respondent, who has taken me through the entire documents and the pleadings. ( 5 ) PETITIONER s case has been that he was out of India during August to November, 1991 and returned only by 12th November, 1991. During his soujorn he was sick and he was not aware of the policy which is stated to have been-notified on 14. 10. 1991 but came to know only when the Council issued a Circular dated 15. 11. 1991. Thus, there was ten days . delay in submitting, the application. ( 6 ) AT the very-outset Mr. Rawal has pointed out the fallacy in the plea taken by the petitioner by pointing out a document placed on record by the petitioner, namely, Annexure A-2, which is the petitioner s application. On the face of it, the date mentioned on this application is 14. 11. 1991, as the date for making the application. In the opening paragraph, reference is made by the petitioner to the policy notified through Textile Commissioner s Order No. 3 (1)/a/91/ep-II dated 14 -. 10. 1991 inviting applications for allotment of the Quota for the year 1992. Nowhere in this application the petitioner has alleged thai he was, not aware of the press note dale 14. 10. 1991. Rather it falsifies the entire stand taken by the petitioner in the-writ petition that the application could not be submitted by him for the reasons stated in the petition, In case this application of the petitioner had been prepared on 14. 11. 1991 there is absolutely no ground to grant any relief to the petitioner. ( 7 ) FROM the decision\which was taken subsequently, in extending the date of receipt of applications from 15th to 18th November, 1991 and permitting all those persons whose applications had been received upto 18. 11. 1991 to complete the remaining formalities in submitting supporting documents by 8. 1. 1992-, no discrimination can be spelled out since the petitioner is not a person similarly situated. In case the decision was that shortcoming in the application may be made good provided application is made in time, the petitioner, who had not submitted his application in time, cannot claim himself to be a person similarly situate. 1. 1992-, no discrimination can be spelled out since the petitioner is not a person similarly situated. In case the decision was that shortcoming in the application may be made good provided application is made in time, the petitioner, who had not submitted his application in time, cannot claim himself to be a person similarly situate. It was due to natural calamity in the southern part of the country that the date of submitting application was extended by only one day. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the decision is required to be taken, in making allotments of Quota, as per Manufacturer Exporters Entitlement System (for short the system ) well in advance to the commencement of the period of entitlement. Under this System the Textile Commissioner is to decide as to which of the exporters are eligible for allotment. On the basis of the information received from the Textile Commissioner, the Commission allots the Quota to such of the exporters, as are determined by the Textile Commissioner, on the basis of production capacity of eligible exporters and the countries/category opted by them. For each Country the allotment is proportionate to the production capacity of the eligible exporters. In the case of Manufacture-Exporters Entitlement System, the year is divided into two parts, namely, from January to May and June to September. The validity period otherwise is from 1 st January to 31 st December. The last date for receipt-of the applications had been fixed, keeping in view various factors into consideration. There was no question of extending the time further for the receipt of applications, since it was made known that the last date of receipt of applications under no circumstances can be extended and since petitioner s application had not been received upto 18,11. 1991, therefore, there was no question of including his name in the list of eligibles. ( 8 ) IN view of the above and also considering the terms of the Garment Export Entitlement Policy, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition since under the System of Manufacturer- Exporters Entitlement, allotment had to be for the year 1992, which has already come to an end and as is contended by respondent there is no quota now available for the said period for being allotted. Resultantly there is no force in the petition which is dismissed.