C. M. NAYAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of C. W. P Nos. 2764/92, 3710/93, 2819 /92, 5094/93, 2796/92, 5359/93,3521/93, 173. 3/94, 518/93,2322/93 and 3441/93. ( 2 ) THE Writ Petition (C. W. P. No. 2764 of 1992) was initially filed to impugn the notice dated 3rd August, 1992 issued by Respondent No. 1, Apparel Export Promotion Council (hereinafter REFERRED TO as the Council and for consequential relief such as for release of non-quota entitlement to the Petitioner and to invoke the licencing authority that there is no order of suspension against the Petitioner and release the Cash Compensatory Support and REP Licences to the Petitioner and to hold that the Disciplinary Committee has no jurisdiction to hold inquiry in the matter. ( 3 ) THE writ Petition. was subsequently amended as an Order of de-registration was passed in the meanwhile on 11th January, 1993. The averments as made in the writ Petition are that under the scheme of Import Export Policy Respondent No. 1 is the only body that can grant quota of the garments to be exported. The memorandum and Articles of Association show that it has been approved by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India and, therefore, function as a State within the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner on 24th July, 1992 approached Shri D. K. Nair for release of 14 Non Quota Entitlement Certificates and brought to his notice the judgment of the High Court dated 21st July, 1992 in C. W. P. No. 1919/92 (Mac Exports Vs. AEPC and Others ). It is further alleged that the said Shri D. K. Nair directed the Petitioner to meet on 27th July, 1992 and also asked for deposit of council charges of Rs. 458. 00 for the period 1st July, 1992 to 30th December, 1992. This amount was deposited but it is stated that request for release of quota was denied though the Petitioner is stated to be entitled to receive Rs. 6 lacs as cash incentive for its best export benefits. The Council sent a letter in January 1992 to Central Licencing Authority informing them that there was suspension order against the Petitioner and the said Authority cannot release quota unless there is a letter of Council of revocation of suspension order. 6 lacs as cash incentive for its best export benefits. The Council sent a letter in January 1992 to Central Licencing Authority informing them that there was suspension order against the Petitioner and the said Authority cannot release quota unless there is a letter of Council of revocation of suspension order. A show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner on 15th January 1992 which is filed as Annexure-I to the writ Petition and reads under:- "registered A. D. Apparel Export promotion Council (Sponsored by Ministry of Commerce,govt. of India) aepc/reg/qa/d/dc-726 (20)036 JANUARY 15,1992 m/s Mac Exports (India) dda Shopping Centre gitanjali new Delhi-110017. SUB. : SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER PARA 298 OF THE HAND BOOK OF IMPORT EXPORT PROCEDURES 1990-93. DEAR Sir, WHILE reconciling the figures of AEPC with the details received from US authorities it has been noticed that the following Visa was used for export of Rayon Blouses in catg. 641. However, as per our record the said Visa had been issued to you with the details indicated below: S No. Visa No. Cat/qty as per AEPC record Cat/qty as per US record 1. 506880 639/1200pcs. 641/1980 pcs. IT is thus evident that you had unauthorisedly exported the garments to USA on the basis of bogus/forged/tampered Visa fraudulently. The above action on your part attracts, the provisions of Para 298 (1) (b) of the Hand Book of Import Export Procedures 1990-93. ( 4 ) NOW, therefore, you are called upon by the notice issued under para 298 (1) (b) of the Hand Book of Import Export Procedures 1990-93 to Show Cause within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice as to why action should not be taken against you/your director/partner under para 298 (1) (b) of the Hand Book of Import Export Procedures 1990-93 to de-register your firm. Your reply to this Show Cause Notice along with corroborative evidence in support to your explanation should reach the undersigned within the stipulated period failing which it will be presumed that you have nothing to say in your defence and the matter will be decided ex parte on merits and on the basis of information and evidence on record without any further reference to you. If you want to be heard in person also to explain your case, you may say so in your reply to this Show Cause Notice within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice. ( 5 ) THIS Show Cause Notice is without prejudice to any action that may be taken. against you/your director/partner under any law and regulation in force. SD/- (D. K. NAIR) SUBSEQUENT notice of hearing dated 3rd. August, 1992 was also sent to the Petitioner by Respondent No. 2. The petitioner was also asked to surrender the original Visa Vide communication dated 22nd May, 1992 which -was issued under Category 639 for 1200 pieces and PPE No. 811632 as REFERRED TO above in the initial show cause notice dated 15th January, 1992. The said communication dated 22nd, May, 1992 has also been filed with the writ Petition as Annexure-VIII and reads as under :- "aepc/reg/qa/d/dc-726 (20)/ May 22,1992 M/s Mac Exports (India), 1, Delhi Development Authority Shopping Centre, GEETANJALI, New Delhi-110017. SUB. :- SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER PARA 298 OF THE HAND BOOK OF IMPORT EXPORT PROCEDURES 1990-93. DEAR Sirs, ( 6 ) THIS has reference to your letter dated 01. 05. 92 received through your Advocate, M/s Ram Panjwani and Co. requesting for personal hearing as well as inspection of documents relating to the case. ( 7 ) WE had requested you to surrender the original Visa No. 1in506880 dated : 06. 04. 91 which was issued to you under category 639 for 1200 Pcs. and PPE No. 811632. You were reminded vide our telex dated 10. 01. 92. However, your reply is yet to be received. Regarding supply of document on which reliance has been placed, the documents were supplied to you vide our letter of even number dated 26. 02. 92. The forged Visa on the basis of which consignment of 1980 Pcs. undercategory 641 again US Entry Challan No. NB100093077 dated 25. 04. 91 had been cleared, is yet to be received from US Custom Authorities. It is as such not feasable to supply this document at this stage of investigation. We will be able to provide you the copy of this Visa after receiving the same from US Customs. ( 8 ) THE Discipline Committee of AEPC will be meeting on 25. 05. It is as such not feasable to supply this document at this stage of investigation. We will be able to provide you the copy of this Visa after receiving the same from US Customs. ( 8 ) THE Discipline Committee of AEPC will be meeting on 25. 05. 92 in Mumtaj-mahal, Hotel Taj Palace, S. P. Marg, New Delhi and provide you personal hearing at 11. 35 a. m. You are requested to attend the personal hearing alongwith documentary evidence in support of your contention and also surrender the original Visa No. 1 IN 506880 dated 09. 04. 1991 under category 639 immediately. A Notice for personal hearing has already been delivered to you on 16. 05. 92. THANKING you, Yours faithfully, sd/- (D,k. Nair) Sr. Director" THE impugned order of suspension was passed by the respondents on 15th January, 1992. The same reads as under ;- "registered A. D. APPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL SAHYOG BUILDING, 4th FLOOR 58, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI -110019. TEL. 6433300,6416709 6419063,6437586 FAX. 6467517 TLX. 031-66037,66431 AEPC IN APEC/reg/qa/d/dc-726 (20) 144 JANUARY 15,1992 SUSPENSION ORDER NO. AEPC/dc/sus/92/002 WHILE reconciling the figures of AEPC with the details received from US authorities it has been noticed that the following. Visa was used for export of Rayon Blouses in catg. 641. However, as per our record the Visa had been issued to M/s. Mac Exports (India) with the details indicated below: S. NO. Visa No. Cat/qty as per AEPC record Cat/qty as per US record 1. 506880 639/1200 pcs. 641/1980 pcs. ( 9 ) IT is thus evident that M/s Mac Exports (India) had unauthorisedly exported the garments to USA on the basis of bogus/forged/ tampered Visa fraudulently. Pending further enquiries into the matter, it has been decided by the Council to keep the Registration-cum-Membership- Certificate of M/s Mac Exports (India), under suspension for a period of three months in terms of sub-para 3 of the rule 298 of the Hand Book of Import Export Procedures 1990-93. ( 10 ) IN exercise of the powers vested with AEPC in terms of sub para 3 of the Rule 298 of the Hand Book of Import Export Procedures 1990-93, the. Registration-cum-Membership-Certificate No. APEC/reg, 4466 of M/s Mac Exports (India) whose partners are Mr. S. Hukam Singh, Mr. S. Har- vinder Singh, Mr. S. Savinder Singh and Mrs. ( 10 ) IN exercise of the powers vested with AEPC in terms of sub para 3 of the Rule 298 of the Hand Book of Import Export Procedures 1990-93, the. Registration-cum-Membership-Certificate No. APEC/reg, 4466 of M/s Mac Exports (India) whose partners are Mr. S. Hukam Singh, Mr. S. Har- vinder Singh, Mr. S. Savinder Singh and Mrs. Minpreet Kaur is hereby kept under suspension for a period of three months w. e. f. 15. 01. 92. ( 11 ) THIS order is issued without prejudice to any further action that may be taken against the firm or its partners under law and regulations in force. ( 12 ) THE period of suspension was further extended by an order issued on April 14. 1992 till 13th July, 1992 without prejudice to any further action that might he taken against the Company or its partners under law and regulations. The prime allegation against the Petitioner on the basis of which it was issued a notice of de-registration is explained in the show cause notice dated 15th January, 1992 which reads as under :- "registered A. D. Apparel Export Promotion Council (Sponsored by Ministry of Commerce, Govt. of India) aepc/reg/qa/d/dc-726 (20)036 JANUARY 15, 1992 m/s Mac Exports (India) dda Shopping Centre "gitanjali new Delhi-110017 sub. : SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER PARA 298 OF THE handbook OF IMPORT EXPORT PROCEDURES 1990-93 DEAR Sir, WHILE reconciling the figures of AEPC with the details received from US authorities it has been noticed that the following Visa was used for export of Rayon Blouses in catg. 641. However, as per our record the said Visa had been issued to you with the details indicated below: ( 13 ) IT is thus evident that you had unauthorisedly exported the garments the USA on the basis of bogus/forged/tampered Visa fraudulently. The above action on your part attracts the provisions of para 298 (1) (b) of the Hand Book of Import Export Procedures 1990-93 NOW, therefore, you are called upon by the notice issued under para 298 (1) (b) of the Hand Book of Import Export Procedures 1990-93 to Show Cause within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice as to why action should not be taken against you/your director/partner under para 298 (1) (b) of the Hand Book of Import Export Procedures 1990-93 to de-register your firm. ( 14 ) YOUR reply to this Show Cause Notice alongwith corroborative evidence in support to your explanation should reach the undersigned within the stipulated period failing which it will be presumed that you have nothing to say in your defence and the matter will be decided ex parte on merits and on the basis of information and evidence on record without any. further reference to you. If you want to be heard in person also to explain your case, you may say so in your reply to this Show Cause Notice within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice. THIS Show Cause Notice is without prejudice to any action that may be taken against you/your director/partner under any I am and regulation in force. sd/- (D. K. Nair) Director (QP)" ( 25 ) THE Petitioner was granted an opportunity of hearing and it was duly represented by the counsel and a detailed order of de-registration was passed on 11th January, 1993 as a consequence thereto which was duly communicated to the Petitioner. The case of the Petitioner as well as of other Companies was examined at length as will be indicated from the minutes of the meeting of he Disciplinary Committee held on 5th December, 1992. The order of de-registration for a period of two years was passed against the Petitioner as well as other Companies as will be clear from reading of the aforesaid minutes of the meeting dated 5th December, 1992. The case of the Petitioner was dealt with in the minutes in the following manner:- "apparel EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL NEW DELHI MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE HELD ON 5th DECEMBER, 1992 IN NEW DELHI THE 6th meeting of the Discipline Committee was held on 5. 12. 92 in Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. The following were present :- (I) Shri S. Narayanan, Joint Secretary, MOT; Chairman, Discipline Committee (II) Smt. Neerja Rajkumar, Director General: Member (III) Shri K. K. Jain : Member (IV) Shri Virender Uppal ; Member (V) Shri D. K. Nair : Member Secretary ( 26 ) 2. Confirmation of Minutes:- The item was deferred since the minutes of the 5th Meeting had not been circulated in advance. 3. Confirmation of Minutes:- The item was deferred since the minutes of the 5th Meeting had not been circulated in advance. 3. M/s Mac Exports (lndia)-DC No. 726 (20): IT was explained to the Committee that on a court case that had been filed by M/s Mac Exports (India) against the suspension and disciplinary proceedings initiated by AEPC, there was a court directive that there should not be any suspension beyond 21. 7. 92. Therefore, the suspension has lapsed on 21. 7. 92. The Court has withdrawn the earlier stay against the disciplinary proceedings in its decisions dated 6. 11. 92 and directed that AEPC, may take a final decision in the main matter and the applications filed by the Petitioner within a month and in case the order goes against them, the same shall not be given effect to until further orders. THE Committee discussed the case and went through all the documents available on record including the oral and written arguments submitted on behalf of the exporter and passed the following order:- M/s Mac Exports (India), 1 Delhi Development Authority Shopping Centre, Geetanjali, New Delhi-110017 had obtained a textile visa and certification of shipping bills from the Apparel Export Promotion Council, New Delhi for export to USA, as per details given below :- ( 27 ) WHILE reconciling details relating to shipments passed by the AEPC, in various quota categories with the corresponding details of shipments cleared by US Customs, it was noticed by AEPC that a visa with the same number as indicated on the one issued to M/s Mac Exports (India) by AEPC, had been presented to the US authorities for 1980 Pcs. in catg. 641 and the shipment was cleared by US Customs. ( 28 ) SINCE AEPC had not issued a visa or shipping bill certification with the above number to any exporters in India for export in catg. 641 and the only visa that had been issued with this number had been issued to M/s Mac Exports (India), New Delhi in Catg. 639, M/s Mac Exports (India), New Delhi were requested vide letter No. AEPC/reg/qa/a/110/91 dated 23. 10. 91 to confirm whether the visa and shipping bills certification obtained by them had been utilised by them for exporting the con- signment. 639, M/s Mac Exports (India), New Delhi were requested vide letter No. AEPC/reg/qa/a/110/91 dated 23. 10. 91 to confirm whether the visa and shipping bills certification obtained by them had been utilised by them for exporting the con- signment. They were requested to furnish Proof of shipment, if the shipment had been effected or to surrender the unutilised documents, if the shipment had not been effected. They were reminded vide telex message dt. 27. 11. 91. Ultimately, vide their letter dated 28. 10. 91. M/s Mac Exports (India) surrendered the shipping bills that had been certified by AEPC, but they did not surrender the visa that had been obtained by them. ( 29 ) M/s. Mac Exports (India) were requested repeatedly by AEPC vide letter No. AEPC/dz/pqs dated 9. 1. 92 and vide telex dated 10. 1. 92 to surrender the visa that had been obtained by them in catg. 639. HOWEVER, they surrendered only the shipping bills without surrendering the visa and did not give any reason for not surrendering the visa. IT was apparent that M/s Mac Exports (India) had misused the visa that had been obtained from AEPC in catg. 639 and exported a consignment in catg. 641 which was cleared by US authorities against a forged visa presented to them with the same No. as indicated by AEPC on the visa issued to M/s Mac Exports (India) in catg. 639. A show cause notice was issued to M/s Mac Exports (India) on 15. 1. 92 as to why the company should not be de-registered for the unauthorised export of 1980 pcs. in catg. 641 to USA by forging/tampering a visa using the same visa number as indicated by AEPC in the visa issued to them in catg. 639. ( 30 ) ON 24th January, 1992, the exporter wrote to AEPC in reply to show cause notice requesting for evidence of export and release of shipment in catg. 641 in USA and the original documents. On 26th February, 1992 AEPC replied enclosing a copy of the statement which showed the details of this particular visa as issued by the AEPC and the details of the visa as received by US authorities including the US customs entry number, port of entry, date of entry, category and quantity. 641 in USA and the original documents. On 26th February, 1992 AEPC replied enclosing a copy of the statement which showed the details of this particular visa as issued by the AEPC and the details of the visa as received by US authorities including the US customs entry number, port of entry, date of entry, category and quantity. The letter indicated that the information relating to the receipt of visa and shipment in USA was a copy of the Namesake statement issued by USA. The exproter had also asked in their letter dated 24th January,. 1992 for a personal hearing. On 3rd March, 1992, the exporter was called for a personal hearing before the Discipline Committee held on 10th March, 1992 in New Delhi. No body turned up to represent the exporter in this meeting. A letter was received from the exporter staling that they may be heard on the three applications separately submitted by them before further proceedings in the case. However, the exporter s advocate Shri Panjwani submitted an application on 6th March, 1992 which mentioned that the AEPC s show cause notice does not clarify whether the visa number was forged or category was forged or quantity was forged and who committed the forgery. He stated that he will not be able to defend himself properly without inspecting the original forged document and getting a copy of it. They also reserved their right to file a comprehensive reply after examining the forged document. They submitted two more applications on 6th March, 1992 itself which cited some legal positions and case laws regarding their case. On 12th March, 1992, they also submitted a letter to AEPC staling that they could not attend the personal hearing on 10th March, 1992, because Mr. Savinder Singh who looks after the case was ill and the case may be adjourned. On 31. 3. 1992 the lawyer of the exporter again wrote to AEPC reiterating the points made in the earlier three applications they had submitted on behalf of the exporter on 6th March, 1992. They also denied the charges on behalf of their client. On 1st May, 1992, another letter was received from the Lawyer of the exporter reiterating the contentions they had already submitted earlier. The exporter was again called for a personal hearing held on 25th May, 1992. Mr. They also denied the charges on behalf of their client. On 1st May, 1992, another letter was received from the Lawyer of the exporter reiterating the contentions they had already submitted earlier. The exporter was again called for a personal hearing held on 25th May, 1992. Mr. Savinder Singh, Partner of the company attended the meeting along with his lawyer. They explained that they had filed a writ Petition in the High Court of Delhi. They also brought the copy of a court order with them. Shri Panjwani requested that the documents on the basis of which the show cause notiee has beenissued and the suspension has been made, may be supplied to them. He requested the committee (i) to permit M/s Mac Exports (India) and their counsel to inspect the statement and the documents on the basis of which the charges have been framed in the show cause notice dated 15. 1. 92 (ii) to supply photocopies of the alleged bogus/forged/tampered visa on the basis of which the company was suspended and show causes notice was issued. On 22nd May, 1992, AEPC again wrote to the exporter reiterating their request for surrender of the original visa dated 9. 4. 91 which has been obtained by the exporter from AEPC for catg. 639for 1200 PCs: This letter also indicated that documents available had been submitted to them on 26th February, 1992 and the forged visa was yet to be received from IS Customs authorities. The committee noticed that all documents available were provided to the exporter for exarnination and copies were also made available. ( 31 ) AS per the Court Order the exporter was at liberty to press their three applications also before AEPC and in caise AEPC pass any final order before the next date of the personal hearing, the order shall not be given effect bill further order. ( 32 ) ON 3rd August, 1992, the exporter was called for a personal hearing before the Discipline Committee held on 10th August, 1992. Shri Ram Panjwani, Adv. , attended the personal hearing on behalf of M/s Mac Exports (India ). ( 32 ) ON 3rd August, 1992, the exporter was called for a personal hearing before the Discipline Committee held on 10th August, 1992. Shri Ram Panjwani, Adv. , attended the personal hearing on behalf of M/s Mac Exports (India ). He argued on all aspects and also stated that since a new Import Export Policy for the period 1992-97 has already been announced by the Government, the Council have no jurisdiction to continue the proceedings initiated in January, 1992 under the provisions of the Policy that expired in March, 1992. He argued that clause 4, Chapter I of the new Policy does not save the para 298 of the old procedures, which conferred the authority on AEPC to suspend. Shri Panjwani argued that Export Import Policy has a limited period of validity and proceedings initiated under the Policy are coterminous with the policy itself. In the present case the show cause notice was issued under the Export Import Policy as prevailing during January, 1992 under Para 298 of the Hand Book of Import Export Procedures. The Import Export Policy and the Hand Book of procedures as prevalent during January 1992 had a validity only upto 31st March, 1992 since a new policy for the period 1992-97 was announced by Govt. effective from 1. 4. 92. Shri Panjwani contended that the proceedings initiated under the earlier policy did not have any legal validity beyond 31. 3. 92.