9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner. Shri Ravinder Aggarwal, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Judgment]. - This is a writ petition seeking a direction to the Respondents to disburse the 45 per cent premium in lieu of the replenishment licences (REP) and to release the Cash Compensatory Support (CCS) against export documents received by them. The Petitioner also seeks compensation for non-release of the incentives in terms of the prevalent import-export policy consequent upon which the Petitioner alleges that he suffered in his export business. 2. The Petitioner Sawhney Export House is a partnership firm engaged in the business of ready-garments and handicrafts. Shri T.S. Sawhney who appears in person and argued this petition, is the Power of Attorney Holde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he licencing authorities by 31st May 1992. It was urged by the exporters that this period should be extended up to 31st October 1992. 5. According to the Petitioner against the application made by it for issuance of REP licences against the exports made between April-June 1990, January-March 1992, neither CCS was disbursed nor the REP licences issued. The Petitioner has quantified the total loss suffered by it at Rs. 96,60,122.50p., and has given a break-up of the calculation in para 8(ix) of the petition. This includes the disbursement of premium at 45% on the REP licences, interest @ 24% on the said amount, the disbursement of CCS claims as well as interest thereon. It is stated that a writ petition was filed (W.P. No. 4741 of 1995) whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the relevant files were not traceable. The Petitioner had not placed on record any letter or correspondence with the Respondents in regard to the said licences. Further the applications pertained for the period April-June 1990 and April-June 1991 whereas the writ petition was filed only in 1996. As regards the claim for damages, this Court held that no material had been enclosed with the pleadings to justify the claims. Moreover, the contention that if the licences had been issued they would have earned 45% premium in the open market as well as the claim for interest at 24% per annum with quarterly rests were held to be "presumptuous" and "not based on material evidence on record". The Petitioner was given liberty to file a civil suit and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 of 1996 should govern the present case as well. This court finds that the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2152 of 1996 was also filed by the Petitioner claiming disbursement of 45% premium, the release of CCS together with interest. That writ petition also came to be disposed of by an order dated 13th May 2009 on more or less identical grounds. 11. Learned counsel for the Respondents has raised objections concerning maintainability of the present petition under Article 226 for recovery of the amount from the Government. He relies on the decision in Suganmal v. State ofMadhya Pradesh - AIR 1965 S.C. 1740. Further it is pointed out that the petition talks of export transactions of 1986 whereas the Petitioner has approached this court only in 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
