Manjula Chellur, C.J.
Heard learned counsel appearing for appellant as well as respondent. Appellant herein was the respondent/Tea Board in writ petition, who suffered judgment at the hands of learned Single Judge.
2. The facts in brief that led to filing of present appeal are as under. The writ petitioner, admittedly a firm engaged in the business of exporting tea as per notification issued by the Government of India, sought extension of incentive scheme to them for promoting exports of Black South Indian Tea in bulk quantity. It is also not in dispute, way back in 1988, such a claim was preferred by the writ petitioner seeking Rs. 4 lakhs incentive on the basis of export of 400 metric tonnes of tea. It is also not in dispute, this quantity was eligible for incentive as per the Scheme existed at the relevant point of time. The respondent, though did not dispute the claim for incentive, raised a doubt that as per the directions of the Government of India amount could be paid only to the trade representative of the Arab Republic of Egypt's Trade Centre situated at Calcutta. Repeated representations were not considered by the appellant Board, therefore petitioner approached this Court by filing original petition in O.P. No. 9153 of 1992, which resulted in Ext. P1 judgment, wherein a direction was given to appellant to consider the claim of petitioner. It is not in dispute, the appeal filed by petitioner was subsequently withdrawn. Therefore directions at Ext. P1 remain without any challenge. Subsequently, petitioner raised claim for interest also, on the ground that though he was entitled for payment of incentive way back in 1988, there was long delay in making such payment. Ext. P3 is the order of the Board wherein claim of petitioner for payment of incentive of Rs. 4 lakhs was granted and no interest whatsoever came to be paid. It is also not in dispute, by virtue of Ext. P4, cheque for a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs was sent to the writ petitioner in the year 2005.
3. Not being satisfied with payment of Rs. 4 lakhs in 2005, writ petitioner continued his demand for payment of interest. However, there was no positive reply, hence he filed present writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The claim of the petitioner was strongly resisted by the appellant, placing reliance on the decision reported in (1998) 3 SCC 501 [Union of India and Ors. Vs. Orient Enterprises and another so also another reported case in (1997) 6 SCC 479 [Indian Carbon Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Assam]. After considering the rival contentions, learned Single Judge though apparently was satisfied with the claim of writ petitioner, ultimately awarded a sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs as compensation instead of awarding any interest on the incentive amount payable by the Board. Aggrieved by same, Board is before us.
4. Delay from 1988 to 2005 was on the ground that only a trade representative of the Arab Republic of Egypt's Trade Centre situated at Culcutta was entitled for the said money. If that was the serious objection, we fail to understand how the Board could consider such claim by virtue of Ext. P3 order, if they were not liable to pay it to the writ petitioner. On the other hand, without raising any objection in terms of Ext.P1, an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs towards incentive was paid to the writ petitioner. Even now it is not the case of appellant that they were not liable to pay said amount to the writ petitioner. They admit that writ petitioner was entitled for payment of incentive. Their only dispute is with regard to payment of interest.
5. According to them, incentive Scheme introduced in 1988 did not provide for payment of interest on delayed payment under any circumstances, therefore, they are not liable to pay any interest. As rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge, the Board was only a trustee through whom incentive under the Scheme introduced by the Government of India had to be paid. Actual amount was disbursed by the Government of India and Tea Board had to disburse it to concerned exporters, depending upon applicability of the Scheme. After receiving such amount from the Government of India, the Board was entrusted with responsibility of considering the applications for claim of incentive and dispose of the same in accordance with the Scheme. In the absence of any serious objection to pay incentive to writ petitioner, according to us, a lame excuse was put up by the Board in not disbursing the incentive payable to writ petitioner. Till 2003, they did not open their eyes and only after the directions at Ext. P1, they came forward to disburse the said amount. This would only indicate, for a period of 16 years, writ petitioner was made to wait for receiving a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs. A sum of Rs. 4 lakhs in 1988 would be of great help to the exporter. The real intention or the object with which the Scheme was introduced in 1988 was to help the exporters. If such incentive payment is delayed by 16 years, the purpose and object of the Scheme is nothing but a failure. Payment of a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs in 2005 would be not much help, though it was something great in 1988. In that view of the matter, one has to consider the facts of the present appeal. In the absence of any fault for the cause of delay on the part of writ petitioner, we fail to understand how appellant Board can resist directions of the learned Single Judge. The decisions relied upon by the Board pertain to altogether a different situation, wherein a Statute is available. The amount of refund would be arrived at only after completion of the process to be attended to under a particular Statute. Here the incentive or subsidy Scheme is entirely different from refund of amount. Refund of amount either under Income Tax Act or Customs Act or under Sales Tax stands on a different footing. The amount, which was entitled by the writ petitioner, was not paid to him with lame excuses for about 16 years. The money did not belong to appellant Board. Money was paid by the Government of India and Board was only a trustee for the same. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, learned Single Judge is justified in awarding Rs.1.5 lakhs as compensation. Apparently, if interest @ 12 % p.a. was awarded, it would have been three times of incentive amount. We find no reason to interfere with the judgment of learned Single Judge. Accordingly, writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
MANJULA CHELLUR, (CHIEF JUSTICE) Sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) kmd