TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (1) TMI 542
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quent 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 Holder of the Petitioner. 3. In terms of the Import Export Policy of 1988, the Chief Controller of Import & Export (CCI&E) announced a scheme giving CCS and REP licences to registered exporters against export performance. The Petitioner is stated to be a regular exporter registered with the Apparel Export Promotion Council (AEPC) and other Export Promotion Councils. The Petitioner submitted applications for grant of CCS, REP licences and traditiona....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 It is stated that a writ petition was filed (W.P. No. 4741 of 1995) which was dismissed as withdrawn with permission to the Petitioner to challenge the orders passed by the Respondents rejecting the claim of the Petitioner. 6. Rule was issued in the present petition on 19th April 1996. This petition was earlier being heard along with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 123 of 1996. That petition was disposed of on 13th May 2009. The prayer in that writ petition was for a direction to the Respondents to disburse the 45% ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 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 if required to move an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for exclusion of the period during which the writ petition remained pending. 8. Likewise it was held that the claims for CCS as well as additional CCS were also not supported by definite particulars. Therefore this Court was unable to grant any relief in that respect as well. It was left open to the Petitioner to approach the office of the Director General of F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 1996. It is submitted that the petition is barred by laches. It is further submitted that the question whether the Petitioner has complied with the conditions of the policy, whether he applied in time for grant of REP licences and CCS, whether he removed the objections pointed out by the Respondents within the time prescribed, are all disputed questions of fact. The Petitioner, however, contests these submissions by pointing out that all d....