TMI Blog1993 (4) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent No. 2 is Textile Commissioner, Ministry of Commerce and Industry. Respondent No. 2, from year to year, announces various export incentives by which exporters are entitled to the exports made by them. Respondent No. 3 is Indian Cotton Mills Federation. It entertains and examines the applications of the exporters in the prescribed manner for cash assistance and distributes the various export incentives to which the exporters are entitled. Respondent No. 4 is Apparels Export Promotion Council, which inter alia has function of implementing the Government s policy as regards the exports. 2. On 26th March, 1978, respondent No. 2 intimated to respondent No. 3 that the Government of India has decided to contribute to the export promotion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gn buyers and which was in force on the date of entering into such contracts and the petitioner had entered into those contracts and the prices were fixed taking into consideration the Cash Compensatory Support that would be available as per the policy. The petitioner says that respondents 1 and 2 have no right to withdraw the Cash Compensatory Support and divest the petitioner from right which had vested in it on account of promise held by respondents. In the words of the petitioner the impugned circular dated 6th January, 1979 had the following consequences on its export : The petitioner could either commit breach of the contract with the foreign buyers and not to supply the goods to the foreign buyers because of withdrawal of the Cash C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered its position, the scheme could not be withdrawn in respect of contracts entered into prior to 1st January, 1979. 5. The validity of the impugned circular also came up for consideration before Bombay, Madras and Karnataka High Courts. The Bombay High Court while disposing of a batch of petitions on 13th January, 1984 reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 535 (Bom.) (Vibgyor Textile International v. Union of India and Another) held that the petitioners acted upon the representation of Government of India that they would get cash assistance to compensate their loses. Justice S.P. Bharucha, as His Lordship then was held that there is no good reason, no equity, no supervening public interest that justifies the conduct of Government of India in res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 79 decided on 19th April, 1984, and Karnataka High Court in Garments International Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Union of India and Another, AIR 1991 Karnataka page 52. As noticed earlier the challenge in all these cases was to same circular i.e. Circular dated 6th January, 1979. 6. I may also notice that though these writ petitions have been pending in this Court for more than a decade yet respondents 1 and 2 have not filed any counter-affidavit. It is a case of no return. Similar is the position in other connected petitions. I may also notice that on applications filed by the petitioners for fixing actual date for hearing of arguments notices were served on the respondents through their Counsel and by orders dated 2nd March 1993, the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot been shown what rights have been created in favour of respondents by lapse of time. Mr. Joseph, however, relies on the order made on Civil Writ No. 1765/80 in Crystalline Corporation v. Union of India and Others and the orders made in C.W. No. 1019/92 - J.P. Export Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Union of India and Others decided on 22nd November, 1983 in support of his contention as to delay and laches. As noticed hereinbefore the petitioner has pleaded that other exporters like the petitioner had filed the writ petitions and the respondents have been assuring that the petitioner will be paid its dues without going to the Court. The said allegations have not been controverted by filing counter-affidavit. Further considering the nature of the di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is contention as well. It is not disputed that the Government of India had to place at the disposal of respondent No. 3 the funds and on the basis of the policy announced, the cash incentive had to be disbursed by respondent No. 3. It has also not been disputed that but for the withdrawal of the Scheme, petitioner would have been entitled to the Cash Compensatory Incentive. In this view, the submission, that there is no legal relationship between the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 is misconceived. The submission that the petitioner has not shown to have altered the position in relying upon the promises is again misconceived as the petitioner has specifically pleaded that relying upon the Scheme they had priced the goods to be supplied t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
