Judgment :- The petitioner has prayed for issuing a direction to the first respondent to issue New Investors Entitlement quota for the year 2002 as per the scheme framed by the first respondent and as per application dated 29.9.2001. 2. The petitioner is one of the partners of the firm M/s.S.P. Apparels. Such firm was originally established in the year 1988 and a factory was established at No.39A Extension Street, Kaikattipudur, Avinashi, Coimbatore for manufacture of readymade garments. In December 1989, application for registration with Apparel Export Promotion Council, the first respondent, had been filed for registration of the firm as manufacturer and exporter in respect of manufacturing unit at the above address and Registration bearing No.AEPC/REG/MAF/21424/SR was granted. The firm continued to be registered with the first respondent since then and Registration-cum-Membership Certificate was being issued from time to time. With effect from 21.11.1996, the unit was converted to “Member Exporter” and the Registration-cum-Membership Certificate number was changed to AEPC/REG/100520/MFG which was duly endorsed in the Registration-cum-Membership Certificate dated 24.7.1996. In such Registration-cum-Membership Certificate, the factory at 39A, Extension Street, Kaikattipudur, Avinashi, Coimbatore was being shown as registered factory till May, 1999. In the year 1998, the petitioner firm set up another manufacturing unit and factory at another address, namely 1/477A Avinashi Main Road, Neelampur, Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore, which was duly brought to the notice of the first respondent, and the first respondent endorsed the address in the Registration cum Membership Certificate. It is claimed by the petitioner that while endorsing such Membership Certificate, the address of the first factory, which was in existence, had been inadvertently struck off by the first respondent. Since the constitution of the firm had been changed in the meantime, the first respondent issued a fresh Registration cum Membership Certificate dated 23.12.1999 valid upto 31.3.2003 wherein the second factory established in the year 1998 was shown as the factory. It is the case of the petitioner that both the manufacturing units, namely 39A, Extension Street, Kaikattipudur, Avinashi, Coimbatore and 1/477A, Avinashi Main Road, Neelampur, Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore, have the necessary factory license and Small Scale registration. While considering the application for allotment of New Investors Entitlement quota for the year 1999, the second respondent, which is the agency for grant of New Investors Entitlement quota, raised certain objections about the non-mentioning of the first factory at 39A, Extension Street, Kaikattipudur, Avinashi, Coimbatore. While considering the application for allotment of New Investors Entitlement quota for the year 1999, the second respondent, which is the agency for grant of New Investors Entitlement quota, raised certain objections about the non-mentioning of the first factory at 39A, Extension Street, Kaikattipudur, Avinashi, Coimbatore. However, on the basis of various explanations given and documents furnished to the second respondent, allotment letter dated 2.2.2000 had been issued granting quota for the year 1999 under the New Investors Entitlement Scheme. Similarly, for the year 2000, on the basis of the application filed by the petitioner firm, such quota had been granted by considering and verifying various items of new machineries installed in both the factories. The petitioner asserts that the respondents are thus fully aware of the existence of both the factories run by the very same firm. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner made an application in respect of New Investors Entitlement Quota for the year 2002 on 29.9.2001. The petitioner furnished various particulars and clarifications from time to time. However, such quota was not granted mainly on the footing that the factory at 39A, Extension Street, Kaikattipudur, Avinashi, Coimbatore had not been indicated in the Registration cum Membership Certificate. After several correspondence had proved futile, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the above said prayer. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The main contention in the counter affidavit is to the effect that the factory at 39A, Extension Street, Kaikattipudur, Avinashi, Coimbatore had not been indicated in the Registration cum Membership Certificate and the petitioner did not qualify for the quota as per the existing Rules. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that without proper application of mind and without considering various documents in proper prospective, the request for release of quota has been mechanically turned down. It has been further submitted that in fact for the subsequent year 2003, such quota has been released by taking into consideration the factories at both the addresses and there is no reason as to why similar consideration has not been extended for the year 2002. 5. It has been further submitted that in fact for the subsequent year 2003, such quota has been released by taking into consideration the factories at both the addresses and there is no reason as to why similar consideration has not been extended for the year 2002. 5. Learned counsel has also referred to the Joint Inspection Team Report dated 21.11.2000 which indicates the name of the unit as M/s.S.P. Apparel with Registered Office at 39A, Extension Street, Kaikattipudur, Avinashi, Coimbatore District and in the said report, the address of the factory is furnished as 1/477A, Avinashi Main Road, Neelampur, Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District. 6. The existence of the factory in the first address at No.39A, Extension Street, Kaikattipudur, Avinashi, Coimbatore has been recognised for the year 1999, 2000 and even for the subsequent year 2003. There is no apparent reason why similar consideration has not been extended for the year 2002. Even though in the counter, the respondents have tried to justify such action in the correspondence made with the petitioner, nothing has been indicted to justify the refusal for the release of New Investors Entitlement quota. It appears that the matter has been dealt with rather mechanically without considering various aspects, particularly when such materials are available for previous years and had been accepted. In my opinion, it is a fit case where the matter is to be considered afresh by the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the quota for the year 2002 has already been exhausted and as such, there is no scope for issuing any quota in favour of the petitioner for the said year. 8. It is not necessary for me to express any opinion on this aspect. However, this is a matter to be considered by the respondents while dealing with the application of the petitioner afresh and if it is found that in fact there is no scope for release of any quota, such order may be passed clearly indicating the aforesaid aspect. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed in part and the matter is remitted to the respondents for fresh consideration. The matter should be reconsidered by the respondents within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.