Y. R. MEENA, J. ( 1 ) THE Court : By this petitioner the petitioners prayed that the impugned order dated 28th September, 1995 passed by respondent number 5 be quashed and respondents be directed to return and deliver the advance licence number P/l/1523922 dated 15th February, 1993 alongwith original Customs copy and DEEC Book with balance CIF value of US $ 27, 20,533. 25 to the petitioner and respondents be also directed to revalidate the aforesaid licence. ( 2 ) ON this petition this court by order dated July 1, 1998 directed the respondents to handover the licence to the petitioner number 1 alongwith the DEEC Book to enable the said petitioner to present the same before the respondent number 4, being the Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce, for revalidation of the same and it was further directed the respondent number 4 either to revalidate the licence or to reject the same and such licence shall be returned by the petitioner to the respondent, Customs Collectorate without further delay. Against that order appeal was preferred before the Division Bench and Division Bench upheld the order of learned single Judge with a further direction that the petitioners shall abide by the order of the single Judge and if that order is modified or there is any variation in that order by the single Judge subsequently that direction shall also be abided by the petitioner No. 1. ( 3 ) THE licence was handover to the petitioner number 1. He submitted it before the Director General of Foreign Trade. That licence was revalidated. Thereafter an application has been moved by the petitioner number 1 in this court statics that now the Customs Authorities no more require the licence and, therefore, it may not be necessary to return that licence to Customs Authorities. Customs Authorities confirmed this fact and the fact was also brought to the notice of this court that the period of licence will expire by 28th February, 1999 and thereafter it will only be a piece of paper with no value, if it is not used. If it was also an admitted case of respondent number 6 that though the un-utilised portion of the licence is to the tune of US $ 27,70,533 but respondent No. 6 has share in that licence to the tune of US $ 6,05,000. If it was also an admitted case of respondent number 6 that though the un-utilised portion of the licence is to the tune of US $ 27,70,533 but respondent No. 6 has share in that licence to the tune of US $ 6,05,000. Therefore, the petitioners should not be allowed to use the entire unused licence. ( 4 ) TO protect the interest of both the parties the petitioners were permitted to use the part of the licence to the extent of US $ 20,70,533 and as there was a dispute regarding the part of the licence to the tune of US $6,05,000 this court directed that both the parties will be at liberty to file the documents in their support alongwith affidavit to consider whether petitioners have sold the part of the licence to respondent No. 6 to the tune of US $ 10,05,238 plus US $ 6,05,000 and whether two letters were issued in pursuance of the agreement by petitioner number 1, in favour of the respondent number 6? For this limited purpose both the parties were further directed to adduce evidences in support of their claim alongwith the affidavit. Both the parties submitted affidavits alongwith documents, in support of their claim that whether there was a transfer of licence to the tune of US $ 10,05,238 or whether the petitioners have transferred the part of the licence in favour of the respondent number 6 to the tune of US $ 10,05,238 plus US $6,05,000. ( 5 ) SHRI Anand learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was a transfer of part of the licence only to the tune of US $ 10,05,238 and to that extent he has raised the debit note in his books of accounts and even the entire amount has not been paid. The petitioner has given notices to respondent for payment of consideration on account of transfer of the part of the licence to the tune of Rs. 74,45,954. In default legal action will be taken. He further submitted that second letter pertaining to US $ 6,05,000 is a forged document. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel Dr. The petitioner has given notices to respondent for payment of consideration on account of transfer of the part of the licence to the tune of Rs. 74,45,954. In default legal action will be taken. He further submitted that second letter pertaining to US $ 6,05,000 is a forged document. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel Dr. Pal for the respondent No. 6 submits that though there is no dispute for the part of the licence to the tune of US $ 20,70,533 but as the petitioners have transferred their part of the licence to the tune of US $ 16,10,238 and issued two letters in favour of the respondent number 6, the petitioners should not be allowed to use the part of the licence to the extent of US $ 6,05,000. Dr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 further submits that this is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction and it can be decided only in a regular suit. ( 7 ) IN support of that, respondent No. 6 furnished two letters issued by Galaxy Manufacturing and Trading Company Private Limited, being the petitioner herein. By one letter they have transferred part of the licence to the tune of US $ 10,05,238 and by the other they have transferred the part of the licence to the tune of US $ 6,05,000. But counsel for the respondent No. 6 could not produce any evidence showing payment of consideration and how that consideration has been paid by respondent number 6 to the petitioner number 1? Whether the second letter of transfer has been issued by the petitioner number 1 in favour of respondent number 6. The second letter thus creates some doubt whether there was a transfer of licence by the petitioners to the tune of US $ 10,05,238 only or in addition there was a further transfer of licence to the tune of US $ 6,05,000. I agree with Dr. Pal that whether two letters have been given by the petitioner or not and whether there was a transfer of licence to the tune of US $ 10,05,238 or in addition there was a further transfer of the licence to the tune of US $ 6,05,000 should be decided in a suit and normally this court should not interfere and decide the disputed questions of fact, in a writ jurisdiction. ( 8 ) BUT at the same time this court cannot ignore the fact that the aforesaid licence was cancelled by Additional Director General of Foreign Trade alongwith other licences vide order dated 28th September, 1995, on account of violation of conditions laid down for use of the licence. Thereafter the Government has decided to reconsider the cases of licence holders, whose licence was cancelled by order dated 28th September, 1995. For revalidation of licence, the production of licence before Director General Foreign Trade was necessary and licence was in possession of Customs Department. ( 9 ) AS the petitioner has not used the entire value of their licence and for revalidation, the production of licence was necessary. The petitioners moved the application before this court praying that the respondent Customs Authorities be directed to handover the licence to petitioners for revalidation. This court has directed the respondents to handover the licence for revalidation. On submission of the original licence before Director General of Foreign Trade, the prayer of the petitioners was allowed. Licence was revalidated with the condition that the licence should be used prior to 29th February, 1999. Meanwhile petitioner came to know that the investigation, for which licence was detained has been completed, the Customs Deptt. no more require that licence. The petitioner can use that licence uptill 29th Feb. 1999. ( 10 ) CONSIDERING the urgency petitioners have moved the application, and prayed that they should be permitted to make use of the licence. ( 11 ) THIS court considering the fact that if the undisputed part of licence is not used by the petitioners on or before 28th February, 1999, the licence will become a piece of paper having no value, there will be no way of compensating them. For that this court has directed that it will be open to the petitioners to use the part of the licence to the tune of US $ 20,70,533. To that extent the respondent number 6 has also no objection. Its limited objection is that there is a dispute regarding use of licence to the tune of US $ 6,05,000 and the petitioner should not be allowed to use that part of the licence. To that extent the respondent number 6 has also no objection. Its limited objection is that there is a dispute regarding use of licence to the tune of US $ 6,05,000 and the petitioner should not be allowed to use that part of the licence. It is true that disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction, but at the same time, if the period of licence expired then the value of licence will be reduced to zero. The licence is not like a real estate property, it is like a perishable goods. After expiry of some period that will be of no use and both the parties will be loser. The licence has been issued for use it should be used and benefit should go to the person entitled to use of that part of the licence. Therefore, no doubt the disputed question can be decided in a regular suit, but regular suit cannot be decided in a day or in a month. It takes years and the period of the licence will expire on 29th February, 1999, not only that here the subject matter is licence. The value of the licence not only depends till it remains valid but it relates to the trade commodity. The price and profit on use of the licence is fluctuating in the market. Therefore, the licence should be used within a period for which the licence has been issued. Even the value of licence is affected by policy of Government or any change in Government that can be liberal or strict that will determine the value of licence. Therefore, there is no reason to invite all these questions which complicate the issue, if the licence is not used till disposal of suit. Therefore, in my view the proper course should be that the licence should be used immediately by the person who has a better claim over the licence, on the facts on record and the profit earned by the party to use the licence shall be subject to the decision in a regular suit, in whose favour the court decides. ( 12 ) THEREFORE, in my considered opinion the licence should be used either by the petitioner or respondent No. 6 before expiry period of licence i. e. 28th February, 1999. ( 12 ) THEREFORE, in my considered opinion the licence should be used either by the petitioner or respondent No. 6 before expiry period of licence i. e. 28th February, 1999. ( 13 ) THE facts are not in dispute that when Visakapatnam Steel Plant (VSP), the Government of India Enterprise was the owner of a freely transferable advance licence bearing No. P/l/1523922 dated 15. 2. 93 having the C. I. F. value of $ 14,624,925 V. S. P. utilised the part value of the said licence for making imports to the extent of $ 78. 75 lacs and thereafter sold or transferred the balance and utilised value of the said licence and transferred the part of the licence time to time to different parties upon payment of valuable consideration and the subsequent transferee become entitled to make Duty Free Import to the extent of part of the licence transferred to it. ( 14 ) IN this process one M/s. Roapali Agencies Pvt. Ltd. of New Delhi purchased the said licence from M/s. Visakhapatnam Steel Plant at a considerable premium and part of the licence has been transferred in the name of M/s. RAPL under cover of letter dated 23rd March 1994. M/s. RAPL transferred the same, in favour of petitioner No. 1 through M/s. Rich and Rich Overseas Pvt. Ltd. , who in turn transferred the same to the extent of US $ 10,05,238 in favour of respondent No. 6. The dispute is regarding how much petitioner has transferred to respondent No. 6 The case of the petitioner that petitioner has transferred only part of the licence to the tune of $ 10,05,238, while the case of the respondent No. 6 is that licence has been transferred in favour of the respondent No. 6 to the tune of $ 10,05,238 plus $ 6,05,000. ( 15 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has transferred part of the licence to the tune of $ 10,05,238 and raised the debit note in its books of accounts to this effect, while the case of the respondent is that the petitioner has issued two letters in his favour, one pertains to transfer of licence to the tune of $ 10,05,238 and second letter to the tune of $ 6,05,000. ( 16 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner drew my attention to the averments in the petitioner at para 5, page 10 wherein it is clearly stated that petitioner has transferred the part value of the licence to the extent of $ 10,05,238 in favour of M/s. Hanuman Trading Corporation, respondent No. 6 and the original licence has been handed over to respondent No. 6 for make use of that part of the licence. ( 17 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No. 6 has not paid the consideration for the part of the licence which has been transferred to the respondent No. 6. No step has been taken by the respondent No. 6 for revalidation of the licence when it was cancelled by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade vide his order dated 29th September, 1995. If some part of the unused portion of the licence of the respondent No. 6 would remain, then he would have taken steps and apply for revalidation of the licence but no steps have been taken by him. ( 18 ) NO. proof of payment of consideration has been furnished. Even respondent No. 6 has not submitted both the letters for Telegraphic Release Advice (TRA), therefore TRA was issued to the extent of value of the licence to the tune of $ 10,05,238. If the part of the licence was transferred by the petitioner to the respondent No. 6 to the tune of $ 16,10,238 then he could submit both the transfer letters, if both were issued, in favour of respondent No. 6 for TRA to the tune of $ 16,10,238. Even the respondent No. 6 has not brought to the notice of Custom Authorities that two letters were issued by the petitioner in favour of respondent No. 6 for transfer of part of the licence to the tune of $ 16,10,238. The Custom Authority does not support the case of the respondent No. 6 rather they have stated that petitioner has submitted only one letter regarding part of the transfer of licence to the tune of $ 10,05,238. The Custom Authority does not support the case of the respondent No. 6 rather they have stated that petitioner has submitted only one letter regarding part of the transfer of licence to the tune of $ 10,05,238. The respondent No. 6 has not placed any material to show that whether two letters of transfer was submitted before Custom Authority in Vishakapatnam why TRA has not been issued against 2nd letter that is letter pertaining US $ 6,05,000, why respondent has not made complaint, if no Tra has been issued against 2nd letter, though both the letters are submitted on the same day for issue of TRA. ( 19 ) IN the affidavit-in-opposition, Dr. Pal, learned counsel for the respondents, brought to my notice paragraphs 4 and 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 13th November, 1998, and submits that the petitioner has imported around 1000 M. T. of Copper Wire Bars valued at US Dollars 16,11,985 against the transfer of part of the licence. He further submits that the respondent No. 6 purchased this part of the licence from the petitioner No. 1. ( 20 ) DR. Pal also draws my attention to the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Bench, Calcutta, dated 7th February, 1997. At page 56 of the order part of appeal memo has been quoted there, the respondent No. 6 claimed that the licence was in the custody of the Customs House, and, when they were conducting their investigation in respect of 4 Bills of Entry, Telegraphic Release Advice could not be arranged in respect of two bills of entry. In the affidavit dated 7th January, 1999 filed by the respondent No. 6, he further draws my attention to Annexure-"h" pertaining to two letters issued by the Galaxy Manufacturing and Trading Co. Ltd. one for US Dollars 10,05,238 and the other one is US Dollars 6,05,000, both are undated. A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6, as whether both the letters were issued on the same date. In reply, he admits that both are undated but both were issued on the same date. Then in a further query, as when there was a transfer of part of the licence to the tune of US Dollars 16,10,238 why two letters were issued, on the same date? In reply, he admits that both are undated but both were issued on the same date. Then in a further query, as when there was a transfer of part of the licence to the tune of US Dollars 16,10,238 why two letters were issued, on the same date? He failed to satisfy me the justification for issue of two letters by petitioner No. 1, in favour of the respondent No. 6 though issued on the same day that creates a great doubt against the claim of the respondent No. 6 whether the second letter was issued by the petitioner No. 1 at all? ( 21 ) A specific further query was put to the learned counsel for the respondent No.6 as for how much the part of the licence was purchased and how the consideration has been paid. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 submits that they have purchased it for US Dollars 16,00,000. The payment was in cash. No receipt was obtained. It is a matter of surprise that the respondent No. 6 has purchased licence worth US Dollars 16,10,238 and has paid consideration in cash and no receipt has been obtained. In one affidavit dated 1. 1. 99 respondent has stated that petitioner has validly raised debit note, in subsequent affidavit dated 25. 1. 99, respondent denied to have received such debit note or has any knowledge of such debit note. ( 22 ) WHEN respondent No. 6 claims that petitioner has issued two transfer letters one pertaining to US $ 10,05,238 and other letter pertaining to U. S. $ 6,05,000. The burden lies on the respondent No. 6, who claims so. ( 23 ) DR. Pal learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that the licence was expired in the month of March 1995, but by the order of this court dated 27th July 1998 the period of validity of the licence has been extended. ( 24 ) I perused the order of this court in appeal, in fact the period of validity of the licence has not been extended by this court. Material on record shows that when the licence was cancelled by Additional Director General Foreign Trade, the Government has taken the decision to reconsider the order for cancellation of licences including the licence of the petitioner and invited applications for this purpose. The petitioner has applied for revalidation of the licence. Material on record shows that when the licence was cancelled by Additional Director General Foreign Trade, the Government has taken the decision to reconsider the order for cancellation of licences including the licence of the petitioner and invited applications for this purpose. The petitioner has applied for revalidation of the licence. The licence was in possession of the Customs Authority. As it was necessary to produce the licence before Director General of Trade Authority, the petitioner has filled the petition in this court and prayed that the respondent be directed to handover the licence to the petitioner so that the licence can be submitted to the Director General of Foreign Trade for revalidation and direction was given by this court as prayed for. That order was challenged in appeal, this court vide its order dated 22nd July 1998 has directed the Director General, Foreign Trade to consider the question of revalidation of the licence, within a period of four weeks from the time the licence is presented to them. Thus the correct facts are that this court has not extended the period of licence. The licence in fact has been cancelled by the Additional Director General, Foreign Trade, on application by the petitioners the licence has been revalidated for the period until 28th February, 1999. ( 25 ) A copy of debit note is at page 15 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner dated 19. 11. 1998 which shows that petitioner has debited the amount of Rs. 31,17,526/- in favour of the respondent No. 6 for transfer of part of the licence valuing to the extent of US $ 10,05,238. In the first affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent they have admitted that debit note has been issued in favour of the respondent No. 6. Not only that for non-payment against the transfer of part of the licence to the tune of US $ 10,05,238, the petitioner has sent notices to respondent No. 6 and placed copies of those notices at page 66, 68 and 75 of the affidavit. In all these notices he referred the figure US $ 10,05,238 and not us $ 16,10,238. ( 26 ) DR. Pal, learned counsel for respondent has further submitted that this court has permitted the petitioner to make use of the licence to the tune US $ 20,70,533, vide order dated 27. 11. In all these notices he referred the figure US $ 10,05,238 and not us $ 16,10,238. ( 26 ) DR. Pal, learned counsel for respondent has further submitted that this court has permitted the petitioner to make use of the licence to the tune US $ 20,70,533, vide order dated 27. 11. 98 but prior to that date petitioner has utilised the part of the licence and thereby, committed contempt of court. ( 27 ) IF petitioner has committed the contempt of court by violating the direction of this court, he will be punished, but it does not affects the issue of transfer. How much part of the licence have been transferred that depends on whether respondent No. 6 has proved that two letters of transfer of licence issued by petitioner, in favour of respondent No. 6, one for US $ 10,05,238 and second letter pertaining US $ 6,05,000. ( 28 ) THUS, contempt petition does not affect the merit of transfer issue. The contempt petition is still pending before this court. ( 29 ) WHETHER respondent No. 6 has submitted two letters of transfer, for Telegraphic Release Advice, learned counsel for Custom Department has submitted that the respondent No. 6 has submitted only one letter which has been given by the petitioner, in favour of respondent No. 6, for an amount of US $ 10,05,238. As per their record no other transfer letter is found on record, which has been given in favour of M/s. Hanuman Trading Corporation i. e. respondent No. 6. ( 30 ) TO sum up, the licence can be used up to 29th of February, 1999, The court has not extended the period of licence in question. The licence was in fact cancelled by the Additional Director General, Foreign Trade and on an application by the petitioner, the licence has been revalidated and it will remain valid only for the period up to 28th February, 1999. No step has been taken by the respondent No. 6 for revalidation of the licence. Only petitioner has applied for revalidation of licence, if respondent No. 6 has any unutilised share in that licence, so cancelled, then why respondent No. 6 has not taken any step for revalidation. No satisfactory reply has been given by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. Only petitioner has applied for revalidation of licence, if respondent No. 6 has any unutilised share in that licence, so cancelled, then why respondent No. 6 has not taken any step for revalidation. No satisfactory reply has been given by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. ( 31 ) NO evidence has been produced that respondent No. 6 has paid the consideration for the part of licence valuing to the extent of $ 16,20,238. The respondent No. 6 also failed to show the reason for issue of two letters on the same day for transfer of part of the licence to the extent of $ 16,10,238. Respondent No. 6 has also failed to show me any evidence that respondent No. 6 has submitted both the letters to Custom authorities for issue of TRA. ( 32 ) IN a letter dated 1st February, 1999, Custom Department has confirmed that only one letter in respect of transfer of part of the licence to the extent of $ 10,05,238 is on record. No other letter is on record. All these evidence clearly show a strong case of ownership of disputed part of licence is in favour of the petitioner that there was transfer of part of the licence, by the petitioner in favour of respondent No. 6, to the tune of $ 10,05,238 only. ( 33 ) IN these facts and circumstances, the proper course would be that petitioner should be permitted to use this part of the licence, before expiry of the licence period i. e. 28th February, 1999. The use of the disputed part of the licence shall be subject to the decision in regular suit. ( 34 ) IN the result, out of US $ 27,70,533 the petitioner was already allowed to use the part of licence to the tune of US $ 20,70,533. Petitioner is further permitted to use remaining disputed part of licence value of US $ 6,05,000. The use of disputed part of licence i. e. US $ 6,05,000 shall be subject to decision in regular suit. Petitioner is also directed before use of disputed part of licence, the petitioner shall give undertaking to court to compensate respondent No. 6 as per decision in civil suit, within two months from the date of decision in civil suit. The use of disputed part of licence i. e. US $ 6,05,000 shall be subject to decision in regular suit. Petitioner is also directed before use of disputed part of licence, the petitioner shall give undertaking to court to compensate respondent No. 6 as per decision in civil suit, within two months from the date of decision in civil suit. On furnishing the aforesaid undertaking by the petitioner in court the bank guarantee and Custom bond which were executed, as per direction of this court order dated 27th November, 1998, shall stand discharged, automatically. ( 35 ) THE writ petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to cost. Dr. Pal, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 prayed for stay of operation of this order. The prayer sought for is rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner also prayed that he be permitted to file an undertaking in court in course of today. That be filed in the court today and be kept with the record. All parties shall act on a signed Xerox copy of the operative portion of this order. The compliance of my direction, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the undertaking that be taken on record. Petition disposed of.