P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.

1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 4-11-2004 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing W.P. No. 51545/2003 and connected W.P. Nos. 52173-205/2003, the appellants have filed the above appeal. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are:

2. The writ petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the manufacture and export of pharmaceutical products, filed application for grant of advance licence under the Duty Exemption Scheme. The Regional Director General of Foreign Trade considered the said application and rejected the same under Rule 7(1)(b) of the Foreign Trade (Regulations) Rules, 1993. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Directorate General of Foreign Trade who rejected the same as per order dated 9-10-2003. It was then that writ petitions Nos. 51545 of 2003 and 52173-205 of 2003 were filed in this Court challenging the two orders with a prayer that they be quashed. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions observing that once the appellate authority found that the refusal of licence under Clause (b) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Rules was not sustainable, it should not have dismissed the appeals. The learned Single Judge was also of the view that the only authority to grant or refuse a licence under the Rules was the original authority which alone ought to have considered the matter again. Accordingly the learned Single Judge set aside the Order-in-Appeal and remitted the proceedings to the original authority for a fresh decision of the application filed by the petitioner in accordance with law within a time frame. It is against this order the present writ appeal has been filed.

3. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the respondent.

4. The contention of the appellants is that the original authority had refused to grant license only on the ground of violation of Clause (b) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 and since that was found to be unsustainable by the appellate authority, the matter should have ended there and a direction ought to have been given to the original authority to grant the licence. We are unable to accept the contention of the appellants as the appellate authority while referring the order of original authority had observed that violation of Clause (a) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Foreign Trade (Regulations) Rules, 1993 had also been made by the respondent.

5. In that view of the matter, we agree with the learned Single Judge that the appropriate authority to decide the applications for grant of licence is the original authority and therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the order of remand does not warrant any interference in this appeal. Accordingly the writ appeal is dismissed.