[ad_1]
Bombay High Court
Bfn Forgings Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India on 7 July, 2025
Author: M S Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
2025:BHC-OS:10214-DB 9-WP-3681-2024 (F).DOCX
Amol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3681 OF 2024
BFN Forgings Pvt Ltd ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors ...Respondents
______________________________________________________
Mr Ashish Chauhan, with Ms Nisha Shah & Ms Tithi
Upadhyay, i/b, Kalpesh Joshi Associates, for the
Petitioner.
Mr Savita Ganoo, i/b, Ms Tanu Khatri, for the Respondents 1
to 3.
Mr Karan Adik, with Ms Sangeeta Yadav, for the Respondent
No. 4.
Mr Jitendra B Mishra, with Ms Sangeeta Yadav & Mr Rupesh
Dubey, for the Respondent No. 5.
______________________________________________________
AMOL
PREMNATH
JADHAV CORAM
M.S. Sonak &
Digitally signed by
AMOL PREMNATH
Jitendra Jain, JJ.
JADHAV
Date: 2025.07.08 DATED: 07 July 2025
11:55:40 +0530
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M S Sonak, J)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the
request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the
parties.
3. This Petition seeks the following substantive reliefs:-
“(i) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, order, or directions, to thePage 1 of 4
::: Uploaded on – 08/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2025 21:51:15 :::
9-WP-3681-2024 (F).DOCXRespondent No. 4 and 5 for making the necessary
changes in EDI system and transmitting the details to
DGFT w.r.t. 174 Nos of shipping bills.
(ii) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, order, or directions, to the
Respondent No. 2 and 3 for allowing the MEIS rewards
w.r.t. 174 Nos of shipping bills.”
4. Mr Ashish Chauhan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner,
submits that the issues raised in this Petition stand covered by
the decision of the Coordinate bench in Technocraft Industries
(India) Limited Vs The Union of India & Ors1. He points out
that pursuant to the directions in this judgment and order,
necessary changes have been made in the EDI system for
transmitting the details to the DGFT. He therefore submits
that the prayer clause (i) stands worked out.
5. Mr Ashish Chauhan submits that appropriate directions
may be issued to Respondents 2 and 3 for processing the
Petitioner’s MEIS applications in respect of 174 shipping bills
within a time-bound schedule.
6. Ms Ganoo, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
Respondents 1, 2 and 3 submits that unless shipping bills are
transmitted online to the DGFT server, it is not possible for
DGFT to process the same.
7. Mr Mishra who appears for the 5 th Respondent submits
that the 5th Respondent has now manually allowed the
amendment and has written to the DGFT about proceeding
with the Petitioner’s MEIS application.
1
Writ Petition No. 3202 of 2022 decided on 13 January 2023
Page 2 of 4
::: Uploaded on – 08/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2025 21:51:15 :::
9-WP-3681-2024 (F).DOCX
8. Mr Chouhan, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner,
places on record a communication to say that in addition to
the manual correction, even correction in the electronic form
has been carried out. In any event, he relies on our decision in
Larsen & Toubro Limited vs. Union of India & Ors. 2 to submit
that the DGFT cannot refuse to process the MEIS applications
for reasons not attributable to the Petitioner.
9. We have considered the rival contentions and are
satisfied that the issues raised in this matter are covered by
the decisions in Technocraft Industries (supra) and Larsen &
Toubro Limited (supra).
10. Accordingly, there is no justification for the DGFT not
processing the Petitioner’s MEIS applications with respect to
the 174 shipping bills due to some systemic glitches, which
appear to have now been largely resolved.
11. In Larsen & Toubro (supra), in somewhat similar
circumstances, we were constrained to make the following
observations at paragraphs 24 and 26, which read as follows:-
“24. Artificial intelligence cannot be at the cost of
mortgaging human intelligence entirely. Technology is to
serve the people and not to place booby traps and make life
extremely difficult for the people. It is otherwise. If there are
some gaps in the existing handling systems, bonafide parties
cannot be made to suffer. The human element endowed with
discretion and reason must step in. The officials operating
such systems, or the officials tasked with implementing the
law and the Government schemes, cannot abdicate
responsibility, raise their hands, deny legitimate relief or
make parties run from pillar to post and ultimately the
Courts to get their dues. The officials who handle technology
must deal with matters with the sensitivity and intelligence
that the situation requires.
2
Writ Petition No. 3667 of 2024 decided on 13 November 2024
Page 3 of 4
::: Uploaded on – 08/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2025 21:51:15 :::
9-WP-3681-2024 (F).DOCX
26. The DGFT cannot adopt an attitude that its
technological systems are not geared to deal with such
situations and that its officials will not deal with such
situations. Human and artificial intelligence must join to
serve the people and achieve ease of business and not be at
loggerheads. Suppose any party is entitled to any benefits
under the law or under the schemes formulated by the
Government to promote exports or trade. In that case, such
benefits must not be denied or unduly delayed by citing
technological glitches or the fact that the current electronic
systems meant to assist the implementation of the law or
operation of such schemes are inadequate or need
revamping. What the law grants cannot be denied or unduly
delayed by technology meant only to assist in implementing
the law. If such an approach continues, the claims of
leveraging technology to serve the people or ease of doing
business will remain paper slogans.”
12. Considering the decisions in Technocraft Industries
(supra) and Larsen & Toubro (supra) and applying to the facts
of the present case, we direct the 2 nd and 3rd Respondent to
process Petitioner’s MEIS applications with respect to the 174
shipping bills as expeditiously as possible and in any event,
within six weeks from the date of uploading of this order. The
2nd and 3rd Respondents must communicate their decision to
the Petitioner within six weeks.
13. The Rule is made absolute in the terms without any
costs order.
14. All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this
order.
(Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J) Page 4 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2025 21:51:15 :::
[ad_2]
Source link