8.1 Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, invited our attention to the relevant Rules and submitted that the Rules are mandatory in nature and they do not confer any power on the Government to extend validity of LOI, as has been done in the present case. On the basis of the material available on record, he submitted that, even assuming that the Government has power to extend the validity of LOI, such power cannot be exercised where the period of LOI has expired long before. In other words, he submitted that even if power to extend LOI is assumed, the Government had to extend the validity of LOI from 20.10.2011 i.e., immediately on expiry of the period of three years from the date of issue of LOI on 20.10.2008. He, in the alternative, submitted that the first extension of LOI granted by the Government vide Memo, dated 17.04.2013 cannot be treated as extension of validity of original LOI, dated 20.10.2008 and at the most it could be treated as issuance of fresh LOI, and therefore, the order of the Commissioner directing SPY to pay LOI/Licence fee, as enhanced by G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 25.01.2011, is valid and legal. He submitted that the petitioner does not have any personal vengeance or grievance against the Chairman of SPY and he has filed the instant PIL in the larger interest of the people and prevent SPY from enjoying the privilege of licence to manufacture without paying fee as applicable.
