TEA BOARD Vs. TEA TEC EXPORTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 It is not in dispute, the appeal filed by petitioner was subsequently withdrawn.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.) 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.