Judgment D.K.Jain, J. 1. Challenge in these two writ petitions is to the order passed by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, whereby he has upheld the order passed by the Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade, cancelling the Duty Exemption Pass Book, commonly known as DEPB Scheme, ab initio and levying penalty under Section 11(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (for short, the Act). 2. Since the basic ground, on which the said action was taken against both the petitioners is identical, for the sake of convenience, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common order. However, for the sake of ready reference. Extracts of C.W.P. No. 15278 of 2004 are taken as illustrative. These are as follows : 3. With a view to boost exports, the Government of India announces various incentives, which include exemption from payment of central excise duty, customs duty etc. and formulation of various schemes under the import and Export Policy, known as EXIM policy. The said policy is declared under Section 5 of the Act. It is declared for a period of five years, though amendments therein are carried out from time to time. DEPB scheme is one of such schemes framed under the EXIM policy. It is in the nature of a licence to import material without payment of customs duty and is in the form of a pass book. The licence is granted against exports. A fixed percentage of value of exports made is credited in the DEPB pass book and is accounted for against the imports. 4. Under the Handbook of Procedures, issued in terms of the EXIM policy, an application for obtaining DEPB is made to the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, respondent No. 1 herein. The application has to be in the prescribed form, accompanied by various documents, including a bank certificate of exports and realisation of the export proceeds. As per the procedure laid down in paragraph 7.38 of the Handbook of Procedure 1997-2002, DEPB can be applied for even before realisation of export proceeds, but if the export proceeds are not realised within 6 months or within the extended period, the DEPB holder is liable to pay an amount equal to DEPB availed along with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of issue of DEPB till the date of deposit. 5. 5. The petitioner claims to have exported goods on 15-7-1999 through Customs Freight Station, Ludhiana. It claims to have approached respondent No. 1 for issue of DEPB on the basis of export documents through an Assistant of the Chartered Accountant. On the basis of the documents, so furnished on behalf of the petitioner, a DEPB pass book was issued on 2-9-1999 for the value of Rs. 2,79,436/-. Admittedly, the export proceeds were realised on 6-9-1999. 6. On the basis of some information received by respondent No. 1 to the effect that some exporters had obtained DEPB on the basis of forged bank certificates of Export and Realisation, on 11-6-2001, two show cause notices under Section 14 for action under Sections 9(4) and 11(2) of the Act, were issued to the petitioner, inter alia , pointing out that their bankers had stated that they have not issued bank realisation certificate produced by them at the time of issuance of DEPB. The petitioner was, thus, called upon to show cause as to why penalty under Section 11(2) of the Act should not be imposed upon it and the DEPB licence should not be cancelled ab initio . 7. In reply to the show cause notices, the petitioner stated that payment for the material exported had actually been realised through proper banking channel and if any forged bank realisation certificate had been filed with respondent No. 1, it had been done by an Assistant of the Chartered Accountant, without their knowledge. 8. Finding the explanation, so furnished, to be unsatisfactory, respondent No. 1, in exercise of powers vested in him under Section 9(4) of the Act read with Rule 10(a) of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993, cancelled the DEPB ab initio and further exercising the power vested in him under Section 11 (2) of the Act, imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- on the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeal to the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade who by the impugned order, has dismissed the appeal. By a short order, he has come to the conclusion that since the petitioner has admitted that its agent had committed a mistake and the fact that DEPR licence was obtained by forging the signatures of the issuing authority which was of grave concern, the petitioner did not deserve any relief. Hence, the present writ petition. 9. We have heard Mr. Hence, the present writ petition. 9. We have heard Mr. S.C. Sibal, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. M.S. Guglani, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioners have assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that the respondents have acted arbitrarily in singling out the petitioners for levy of the aforementioned penalty and in revoking the DEPB, inasmuch as, under similar circumstances, no action had been taken against similarly situated concerns, who had also obtained DEPBs on the basis of forged bank realisation certificates. Neither their DEPBs were cancelled ab initio nor penalty under Section 11(2) of the Act was levied. It is also urged that on the facts in hand, provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act are not attracted because in the instant cases, neither the exports nor the imports had been made in violation of any provisions of the Act. Learned Counsel have also argued that cancellation of DEPB ab initio is not contemplated under Section 9(4) of the Act, particularly when the period of its validity was already over. It is thus, vehemently pleaded that the respondents have not only exceeded their jurisdiction in cancelling the licence ab initio , action taken against the petitioners is too harsh, particularly when they had no knowledge of the submission of forged certificates by the Chartered Accountants representative. 11. Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that since the claim for DEPB at the threshold, was based on a forged document, namely, the bank certificate of export and realisation, showing realisation of the export proceeds, when admittedly these were received after the issue of DEPB, the petitioners had played fraud with the authorities and therefore, they do not deserve any relief. It is argued that since the forged certificates were signed by the partners themselves, the submission that these were furnished by a representative of the Chartered Accountant, does not absolve the petitioners from their liability under the Act. It is urged that since imports by the petitioners were cleared without payment of customs duty on the basis of duty credit allowed in the DEPB, which was obtained on the basis of a forged bank certificate. Section 11(2) of the Act is clearly attracted. 12. It is urged that since imports by the petitioners were cleared without payment of customs duty on the basis of duty credit allowed in the DEPB, which was obtained on the basis of a forged bank certificate. Section 11(2) of the Act is clearly attracted. 12. We are of the view that both the petitions are bereft of any merit. The entire claim of the petitioners was based on falsehood. It is not in dispute that furnishing of bank certificate of exports and realisation of export proceeds was a pre-requisite for issue of DEPB. Admittedly, the bank certificates furnished were fabricated documents. The observations of the former Lord Chief Justice of England, Sir Edward Coke, more than three centuries ago, that fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal, noticed by the Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853, are apt for the instant case. The Apex Court has also observed that an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another is a fraud. Fraud is a cheating intended to get an advantage. A person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to seek relief in equity. Recently in Commissioner of Customs v. Essar Oil Ltd. - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) = (2004) 11 SCC 364, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that it is a fraud in law if a party makes representations, which he knows to be false, and injury enures therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. Therefore, at the outset, we reject the stand of the petitioners that since the goods were in fact, exported, and the proceeds were realised, no contumacious conduct could be attributed to them and perhaps it was a misadventure on the part of their representatives. It does not matter whether the forged certificates were furnished by the petitioners or their representatives. What is material is that representations were made to the Directorate of Foreign Trade either by them or on their behalf; the Joint Director of Foreign Trade acted on these representations and issued the DEPBs. The petitioners were fully aware that remittances had not been received, through the bankers whose certificates had been furnished. It clearly shows the fraudulent motive. What is material is that representations were made to the Directorate of Foreign Trade either by them or on their behalf; the Joint Director of Foreign Trade acted on these representations and issued the DEPBs. The petitioners were fully aware that remittances had not been received, through the bankers whose certificates had been furnished. It clearly shows the fraudulent motive. Being the ultimate beneficiaries of the DEPBs, they cannot be heard to say that they are innocent. 13. There is no substance in the plea that a DEPB cannot be cancelled after it has outlived its life. Sub-section (4) of Section 9 of the Act, confers upon the Director General or the authorised officer power to suspend or cancel any licence granted under the Act. Suspension is an interim measure, pending passing of a final order, but cancellation envisages annulment, a complete abolition of the right for the exercise of which a licence is granted. The power to suspend or cancel the licence vested in the Director General is determined by reference to the language used in the Statute and not by reference to any predilections about the legislative intent. We are unable to read into Section 9(4) of the Act anything which would indicate that expression cancel means only revocation of a licence which is otherwise valid and operative and that too retrospectively. In our opinion, the power to cancel a licence includes cancellation of both, whether unutilised or utilised. 14. True, the cancellation of a licence entails severe consequences but in a case, like the present one, where the claim at the threshold was based on a forged document, in absence whereof an application for issue of DEPB was not maintainable, cancellation of the pass books cannot be said to be a harsh punishment, disproportionate to the malfeasance committed, as is sought to be pleaded on behalf of the petitioners. We do not find any equity in favour of the petitioners. 15. As regards the applicability of the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act, it will be useful to refer to Section 3 of the Act, which confers power on the Central Government to make provisions relating to imports and exports. The section reads as follows : 3. Powers to make provisions relating to imports and exports. 15. As regards the applicability of the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act, it will be useful to refer to Section 3 of the Act, which confers power on the Central Government to make provisions relating to imports and exports. The section reads as follows : 3. Powers to make provisions relating to imports and exports. - (1) The Central Government may, by Order published in the Official Gazette, make provision for the development and regulation of foreign trade by facilitating imports and increasing exports. (2) The Central Government may also, by Order published in the Official Gazette, make provision for prohibiting, restricting or otherwise regulating, in all cases or in specified classes of cases and subject to such exceptions, if any, as may be made by or under the Order, the import or export of goods. (3) All goods to which any Order under sub-section (2) applies shall be deemed to be goods the import or export of which has been prohibited under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 and all the provisions of that Act shall have effect accordingly. Sub-sections (1) and (2) are aimed at facilitating imports and increasing exports by conferring upon the Central Government power to issue orders in the Official Gazette, regulating, prohibiting or restricting in all cases or specified classes of cases, the import or export of goods. The object and purpose of sub-section (3) is to apply the prohibitions imposed under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 to all goods to which any order under sub-section (3) applies and thereby to apply all the provisions of the Customs Act to the said goods. The provisions of sub- section (3) and the orders passed thereunder have to be read in conjunction with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 which form an integrated whole. In other words, the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 would apply by reason of the operation of legal fiction created by Section 3(3) of the Act to all imports and exports made under any provision notified under the Act. In other words, the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 would apply by reason of the operation of legal fiction created by Section 3(3) of the Act to all imports and exports made under any provision notified under the Act. 16 In the instant case, the stand of the respondents in the written statement is that the imports made by the petitioners were cleared without payment of customs duty on the basis of duty credit allowed in the DEPBs issued under the Act, which were obtained on the basis of forged bank realisation certificates. This factual averment has not been controverted by the petitioners. In the light of this factual scenario, reading the provisions of the said two Statutes conjointly. Section 11(2) of the Act would be clearly attracted. We are of the considered view that duty free imports made by the petitioners on the basis of DEPBs, fraudulently obtained, is tantamount to contravention of the provisions as engrafted in Section 11 of the Act and thus, no fault can be found with the orders levying penalties under the said Section. 17. Insofar as the main challenge on the ground of discrimination is concerned, it would suffice to say that the plea of discrimination is never available in an act of illegality. An illegal order cannot constitute the basis for a legitimate complaint of discrimination. Thus, an illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling an authority to repeat that illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. The extraordinary and discretionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose. Giving effect to such pleas would be prejudicial to the interests of law and will do incalculable mischief to public interest. It will be a negation of law and the rule of law. (See : Chandigarh Administration and another v.Jagjit Singh and another , AIR 1995 SC 705 and Style (Dress Land) v. Union Territory, Chandigarh (1999) 7 SCC (89). Hence, we reject the contention. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, both the petitions, being devoid of any merit, are dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.