Madras High Court
C.M.Kamaraj vs The Assistant Director on 18 September, 2008
Author: M.Jaichandren
Bench: M.Jaichandren
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.9.2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.3647 of 2001 C.M.Kamaraj Proprietor Sakthi Coco Products 9/2, Sakthi Co-op. Industrial Estate Pollachi .. Petitioner vs. The Assistant Director Agricultural & Processed Food Products, Export Development Authority (APEDA) NCUI Building No.3, Siri Institutional Area August Kranti Marg New Delhi 110 016 .. Respondent This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the respondent in OPF/MDA/51/2000-2001/5579, dated 10.10.2000 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to grant marketing development assistance as per the scheme announced by the Government of India for participation in the fair India 2000 Industrial Exhibition held at Dhahran Industrial Exhibition Centre Saudi Arabia from 18th to 24th September 2000 to the petitioner. For petitioner : Mr.Palani Selvaraj For Respondent : Mr.M.Devendran Senior panel counsel for Central Government O R D E R
Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and the respondent.
2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the respondent, dated 10.10.2000, rejecting the application of the petitioner for the grant of Marketing Development Assistance, quash the same and to direct the respondent to grant the Marketing Development Assistance announced by the Government of India for participation in the fair India-2000 Industrial Exhibitions held in Saudi Arabia from the 18th to the 24th of September, 2000.
3. It has been stated that the petitioner is a leading Industrialist, who has establishments and industries including CoCo products at Pollachi. The petitioner has earned a large amount of foreign exchange for the country and he has been awarded the best Entrepreneur and Export Awards, both by the Central and the State Governments.
4. It has been further stated that the respondent authority, which is a unit of the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce, had announced a marketing development assistance scheme to stimulate the diversification of exports by granting aid for the export efforts to non status holder exporters. The respondent, by proceedings in APEDA/TFD/99-2000-EAC, dated 29.3.2000, prescribed the procedure for the grant of the marketing development assistance to exporters. The said scheme has been formulated to facilitate various measures being undertaken to stimulate and diversify the country's export trade. As per the said scheme, all exporters are eligible for the marketing development assistance in exploring the members and stimulating and diversifying exports of Indian Products and Commodities through the activities like sales-cum-study tours, participation in fairs, exhibitions, buyer-cum- seller meets, advertisement in foreign media and bringing out publications, publicity materials, product catalogue etc., for their use abroad.
5. It has been stated that the said scheme had been announced by the Government of India in order to promote export activities to foreign countries. Accordingly, the Government of India had announced the marketing development assistance scheme for the participation in India-2000 Industrial Exhibitions, which was to be conducted in Saudi Arabia from 18th to 24th September, 2000. Immediately, after the announcements had been made, the petitioner had informed the respondent that he is a leading manufacturer of desiccated coconut powder, which is used in the biscuit manufacturing industry. The said product was being exported to Saudi Arabia and other gulf countries. The petitioner had submitted the prescribed application for the marketing development assistance grant for participation in the fair, on 26.6.2000, with an estimated expenditure of 2500 US Dollars, which is equal to Rs.1,50,000/-. After the receipt of the application, the respondent had informed the petitioner in letter No.APEDA/PPD/SCH/2000/2900, dated 6.7.2000, that the guidelines for the marketing development assistance scheme had been revised and the format had been changed. Therefore, the petitioner was asked to submit a fresh application as per the revised guidelines. Accordingly, the petitioner had sent a fresh application as directed by the respondent in annexure III of the revised guidelines claiming a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-, for the marketing development assistance grant for sales-cum-study tour abroad in the fair to be held at Saudi Arabia, during the year, 2000.
6. It has been stated that the respondent, by a letter, dated 22.8.2000, had informed the petitioner that the application had been rejected as it was not in consonance with annexure VII as it was revised again and the format in the annexure VII had been sent to the petitioner for the purpose of marketing development assistance. Subsequently, the petitioner had applied in annexure VII, on 3.9.2000, through courier service and it had been received by the respondent, on 4.9.2000. The petitioner had participated in the fair at Dhahran Industrial Exhibition Centre, Saudi Arabia from 18th to 24th September, 2000, for which the petitioner is entitled to 90% of the expenditure incurred which comes to Rs.1,10,000/-, as per the marketing development assistance announced by the Government of India. However, the respondent by its proceedings OPE/MDA/51/2000-2001/5579, dated 10.10.2000, had rejected the petitioner's claim stating that as per APEDA norms, the application must have reached the office at least 14 days in advance of the actual departure. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. Inspite of several adjournments having been granted to the respondent for filing a counter affidavit and for the production of the relevant records, no counter affidavit has been filed, denying the claims made by the petitioner. Further, no records have been produced for this Court to verify the factual position regarding the claims made by the petitioner.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that the impugned order, rejecting the petitioner's claim for the marketing development assistance grant for participation in the exhibitions held in Saudi Arabia, is arbitrary, unreasonable and in violation of the scheme announced by the Government of India.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further contended that even though the petitioner had submitted an application in the format sent by the respondent as early as, on 26.6.2000, it had not been accepted by the respondent. No sufficient cause or reason has been shown for the non-acceptance of the application. However, the respondent had changed the format, which was informed to the petitioner by a letter, dated 11.8.2000. Though the petitioner had sent a request in the changed format, on 11.8.2000, one month prior to the departure, the respondent by a letter, dated 22.8.2000, had informed the petitioner that the format had again been changed and the revised format in annexure VII, which was sent by the respondent had been received by the petitioner, on 2.9.2000. The petitioner had submitted the third application in the form in annexure VII, through a courier service as early as on 3.9.2000. However, the respondent had rejected the application submitted by the petitioner, as time barred. The respondent had not stated as to how the application submitted by the petitioner is beyond the period prescribed under the scheme. In fact, the impugned order only states that the application of the petitioner, dated 3.9.2000, has been rejected, since as per the Agricultural & Processed Food Products, Export Development Authority norms, the application must have reached the respondent atleast 14 days in advance, prior to the actual departure. However, it does not refer to the earlier applications sent by the petitioner following the communications sent by the respondent to the petitioner, regarding to the changed formats for making the application, under the marketing development assistance scheme. Condition No.1 forming a part of the guidelines and proforma relating to the marketing development assistance issued by the Agricultural & Processed Food Products, Export Development Authority, Ministry of Commerce, Government of India reads as follows:
"1. All applications must be received in APEDA minimum 14 days in advance of the date of commencement. Date of receipt of application and date of commencement of the event are not to be included in the Notice period."
Accordingly, the application of the petitioner, dated 3.9.2000, received by the respondent, on 4.9.2000, is within the 14 days notice period, prescribed as a condition under the scheme, as the Exhibition was held in Saudi Arabia between 18th to 24th September, 2000.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further contended that in the communication, dated 3.11.2000, issued on behalf of the Agricultural and Processed Food Products, Export Development Authority, (Ministry of Commerce, Government of India), it has been stated that the petitioner would have to apply for the financial assistance for the participation in exhibition or for the sales-cum-study tours, 20 days in advance. While so, it is arbitrary on the part of the respondent to reject the application of the petitioner, dated 3.9.2000, requesting for the marketing development assistance. Further, a communication from the Assistant Director, Agricultural and Processed Food Products, Export Development Authority, to the petitioner, dated 6.7.2000, refers to the letter of the petitioner, dated 26.6.2000, regarding the petitioner's participation in the exhibition to be held in Saudi Arabia and it had also stated that all the requirements as mentioned in the revised guidelines are to be submitted within the stipulated time of 14 days, before the commencement of the tour. In such circumstances, the impugned order passed by the respondent, on 10.10.2000, rejecting the request of the petitioner for the grant of marketing development assistance, is arbitrary and illegal.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has not refuted the averments made on behalf of the petitioner.
12. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and on a perusal of the records forming part of the typed set of papers filed on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that sufficient grounds have been made out by the petitioner to set aside the impugned order passed by the petitioner, on 10.10.2000, rejecting the request of the petitioner for marketing development assistance, as prayed for in his last application, dated 3.9.2000.
13. The respondent has not shown proper reasons for rejecting the request of the petitioner for the grant of financial assistance, under the marketing development assistance scheme of the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, which is meant for encouraging the exporters to undertake sales-cum-study tours to foreign countries and for participation in trade fairs and exhibitions abroad.
14. There is sufficient evidence borne out from the records available before this Court to show that the petitioner had written a letter, dated 11.8.2000, to the respondent seeking financial assistance for meeting the expenditure incurred in the foreign travel. From the communication, dated 3.11.2000, issued on behalf of the respondent, it is seen that the petitioner has been informed that the financial assistance for participation in exhibition and market-cum-study tours is given to the exporter, as per the guidelines given in the proforma enclosed along with the said communication. It has also been brought to the notice of the petitioner that the application should be made 20 days in advance before the market -cum-study tour or the participation in an exhibition abroad. On the other hand, there is nothing to substantiate the claim of the respondent that the application submitted by the petitioner for the financial assistance, under the marketing development assistance scheme, is time barred.
15. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the respondent, dated 10.10.2000, is set aside and the respondent is directed to consider the request of the petitioner for financial assistance, under the marketing development assistance scheme announced by the Government of India, in the light of the guidelines issued for the implementation of the said scheme, without reference to the aspect of delay and to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
16. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
lan To:
The Assistant Director Agricultural & Processed Food Products, Export Development Authority (APEDA) NCUI Building No.3, Siri Institutional Area August Kranti Marg New Delhi 110 016 [ PRV / 16071 ]