UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERSversusM/S. PRINCE RUBBER INDUSTRIES

              [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1187


              UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS                           A
                              v.
           MIS. PRINCE RUBBER INDUSTRIES
             (Civil Appeal No. 4585 of 2005)
                   DECEMBER 03, 2010
                                                                  B
[MARKANDEY KATJU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

      Export-Import - Grant of 8 % Cash Compulsory Support
premium, against advance import licence under the Scheme
- Claim for - Rejection due to closure of Scheme - Writ           C
petition - Direction by High Court to release grant of 8 % Cash
Compulsory Support premium against advance import
licence as per the Circular with interest since application was
made within time - On appeal, held: No infirmity in the order
passed by the High Court - Delay/laches - Circular No. 11         D
dated 05. 05. 1993.

     The respondent claimed grant of 8% Cash
Compulsory Support premium against advance import
licence under the Scheme funded by the RBI. The Deputy
Director General of Foreign Trade by a letter rejected the        E
claim since the Scheme had been closed. In writ petition,
the High Court quashed the letter and directed the release
of the grant of 8 % Cash Compulsory Support premium
with 8% interest per annum, as per circular No. 11 dated
05.05.1993. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant           F
appeal.

    Dismissing the appeal, the Court

    HELD: There is no infirmity in the impugned                   G
judgment. Under Circular No. 11 dated 05.05.1993, the
application for relief was to be made by 31.07.1993. The
High Court held that the respondent-writ petitioner had
applied on 26.07.1993. Hence, its application was within
                            1187                                  H
    1188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   time. The authorities concerned failed to take necessary
    action on the application of the writ petitioner, and their
    inaction cannot be a ground for denying the claim of the
    writ petitioner. (Paras 5, 6 and 7) (1189-A-C]

B       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    4585 of 2005.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 19 .1. 2004 of the High
    Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Writ Petition No.
    2116 of 2002.
c
        Ashok Bhan, Shweta Verma (for V.K. Verma) for the
    Appellant.

        Salil Sagar, Yash Pal Dhingra for the Respondent.

D       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        MARKANDEY KATJU, J. 1. This appeal has been filed
    against the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench
    of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh dated
E   19.01.2004.

        2. The facts of the case have been stated in the impugned
    judgment of the High Court and hence we are not repeating the
    same here, except where necessary.

F      3. The Writ Petition in the High Court was filed for quashing
  the order dated 23.03.2001 of the Deputy Director General of
  Foreign Trade. By the aforesaid order dated 23.03.2001 the
  Deputy Director General wrote to the Writ Petitioner (the
  respondent herein) that its claim for grant of 8 % Cash
G Compulsory Support premium against" the advance import
  licence under the scheme funded by the Reserve Bank of India
  cannot be allowed as the scheme had been closed since 1994.

         4. By the impugned judgment the High Court has quashed
    the letter dated 23.03.2001 and directed release of the grant
H
  UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. PRINCE RUBBER 1189
      INDUSTRIES [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]

of 8 % Cash Compulsory Support premium against advance              A
import licence as per circular No. 11 dated 05.05.1993 along
with interest at the rate of 8 % per annum.

       5. We see no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
     6. Under circular No. 11 dated 05.05.1993 the application      B
for relief was to be made by 31.07.1993.

      7. The High Court has held that the Writ Petitioner
(respondent h~rein) had applied on 26.07.1993. Hence its
application was within time. The concerned authorities failed       c
to take necessary action on the application of the Writ
Petitioner, and their inaction cannot be a ground for denying
the claim of the Writ Petitioner.

    8. Thus there is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed.   D
No cost.

N.J.                                        Appeal dismissed.