AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Muralidhar, J.—This writ petition filed on 14th November 1991, seeks a mandamus directing the Commissioner of Industries, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (''GNCTD'') to clear the claim of the Petitioner society relating to grant of rebate on sales of handloom clothes in terms of the policies dated 17th June 1983 and 21st October 1983.
The Petitioner states that it is a society engaged in the manufacture of handloom cloth. It sells its products through retail outlets by organizing exhibitions and expositions. The Government of India on 17th June 1983 announced a scheme granting special rebate on the sales of handloom cloth for the year 1983-84. Among the conditions for the grant of rebate was that the rebate would be within a ceiling of 20% and will be applicable only to sales of handloom cloth made at retail outlets of apex expositions of weaver cooperatives or State Handloom Development Corporations. The Central Government''s share of the rebate on retail sales would be limited to Rs. 50/- or 10% of the value of the retail transaction whichever was less. In order to enable the Central Government to release its share of the rebate, the State Governments and Union Territories were to ensure that the rebate claims were supported by an audit certificate. The claims were to be forwarded to the Development Commissioner for Handlooms complete in all respects within six months of the rebate being paid. The rebate claims were to be accompanied by the orders of the concerned State Government/Union Territory authorizing the rebate.
It is stated that the Government of Uttar Pradesh organised a mini exposition during May-June, 1983. The Commissioner of Industries, Respondent No. 2, sponsored the Petitioner for participation in the said exposition. It is stated that the Petitioner attended the exposition and allowed a rebate of 20% on the sale price of handloom cloth to all its customers. The Petitioner states that it was assured by Respondent No. 2 that the said rebate amount would be reimbursed to it in terms of the scheme. After the conclusion of the exposition the Petitioner lodged its claim for the rebate with Respondent No. 2 by a letter dated 6th September 1983. According to the Petitioner the representatives of Respondent No. 2 visited its premises on 2nd February 1984. The Petitioner claims to have answered all the queries raised by Respondent No. 2 in respect of the said claim. However, the claim of the Petitioner as aforesaid was not settled for over three months.
The Petitioner received a notice dated 14th March 1984 from the Registrar of Cooperative Societies (''RCS''), Respondent No. 3, stating that an inquiry had been initiated against it u/s 55 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act (''DCS Act'') and that Respondent No. 3 had been directed to examine the functioning of the Petitioner''s society. The Petitioner was verbally informed that its payment was not being cleared since the inquiry u/s 55 of the DCS Act was still pending. Thereafter, in March 1985 the RCS gave its report exonerating the Petitioner. Yet the Petitioner''s claim for rebate was not settled. The Petitioner sent a reminder on 27th March 1986. Again on 19th May 1986, it received a letter from the RCS stating that an inquiry u/s 59 of the DCS Act was proposed to be conducted. This led to further in-depth enquiry. The consequential report, according to the Petitioner, vindicated its stand and completely exonerated it. After coming to know of the report, the Petitioner sent a letter dated 9th September 1987 to the RCS asking that a no objection certificate be sent to Respondent No. 2 for the purpose of release of the rebate claim. It is stated that despite reminders Respondent No. 2 failed to settle the claim. By a letter dated 18th May 1990 Respondent No. 2 simply stated that the Petitioner''s claim was under examination. In response to a further reminder Respondent No. 2 by its letter dated 23rd March 1991 stated that the matter was again being taken up with the Department of Cooperative Societies for a report.
There is another claim which the writ petition talks of. It is stated that a National Exhibition Handloom was held in Kanpur in 1983-84. There was a scheme for 15% special rebate allowed to the primary Handloom Weaver Cooperative Societies of Delhi on the wholesale sales of handloom cloth produced by them. According to the Petitioner, in terms of the said scheme the stocks of the Petitioner society were inspected by Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner states that it was given to understand that the rebate would be allowable on the sale of its products at the National Expo. The Petitioner participated in the National Expo held at Kanpur and sold its products by giving 15% rebate to the consumers. In this regard, the Petitioner lodged a claim with Respondent No. 2 on 27th June 1984. Again this claim too was not settled.
The Petitioner then talks of a mini Expo which was held at Jaipur for a period of three weeks commencing 15th March 1985. The Petitioner was given an assurance by Respondent No. 2 that 20% rebate would be allowed to handloom cooperatives at the mini Expo and on that basis the Petitioner sold its products there by allowing a 20% rebate on its sales. The Petitioner lodged a claim with Respondent No. 2 on 31st March 1986 for reimbursement of the rebate. It appears that on 5th June 1986, the Director of Industries, GNCTD informed that there would be no rebate on sales of the handloom cloth at its mini Expo at Jaipur. The Petitioner contested this and repeatedly made representations. On 28th June 1989, the Petitioner was informed by Respondent No. 2 that the Department had already made it clear on 5th June 1986 that no rebate was admissible for the claim. More representations followed. The Petitioner later received a communication dated 7th January 1991 from the Office of Development Commissioner for Handloom, Government of India stating that the said rebate was indeed allowable on handloom sales at the Expo at Jaipur from 15th March 1985 to 7th April 1985. Since Respondent No. 2 was refusing to reimburse the rebate allowed to the Petitioner despite the above clarification, the present petition was filed.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2, it is stated that rebate claim of the Petitioner was withheld on account of the pending inquiry conducted by Respondent No. 3. As far as the scheme for grant of 15% special rebate on the wholesale sales of handloom cloths to primary Handloom Weaver Cooperative Societies of Delhi, it is pointed out that one of the conditions was that the Petitioner was required to get the stocks verified by Respondent No. 2 "before starting sales for availing the above said special rebate facility." A copy of the letter dated 30th July 1984 rejecting the Petitioner''s claim for reimbursement of the 15% special rebate on wholesale sales of handloom for the years 1983-84 has been enclosed with the counter affidavit. As regards the mini Expo at Jaipur, Respondent No. 2 denied that there was any directive from the Office of Development Commissioner (Handloom) for allowing the special rebate of 20%. It is further pointed out that the inquiry conducted by Respondent No. 3 showed that production of the goods worth Rs. 6,91,123.86 had taken place and that this was not possible with three or four working looms. The report further observed that sale and purchase for the period 1982-83 had been fabricated in order to claim rebate on sales. It is stated that in view of the said report, the claims of the Petitioner were not considered. It is pointed out that on 5th June 1986 itself the Petitioner was informed that its rebate claims for the mini Expo at Jaipur could not be entertained.
In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No. 1, Union of India, it is inter alia stated that handloom cooperatives in Delhi area were not covered for reimbursement of rebate monies under special rebate scheme prior to 1987-88. Consequently, the question of granting monetary relief by the Government of India to the Petitioner did not arise.
In the rejoinder affidavit, the Petitioner reiterated its claims. It stated that as regards the rebate for the National Handloom Expo at Kanpur held during May-June, 1983, Respondent No. 2 was liable to pay the Petitioner Rs. 58,188.50 together with interest @ 20% per annum from the period 15th June 1983 till the date of payment. As regards the mini Expo held at Jaipur Respondent No. 2 was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,98,597.50 together with interest @ 24% per annum from 8th April 1985 till the date of payment. As regards the third item i.e. special rebate of 15% on the wholesale sale of handloom cloth during the year 1983-84, the Respondent No. 2 was liable to pay Rs. 91,161.30 with interest 24% per annum with effect from 27th December 1983 till the date of actual payment. The Petitioner enclosed with its rejoinder photocopies of two pages of stock register to show that an Inspector from the Office of Respondent No. 2 visited Petitioner''s offices and verified the stocks.
This Court heard the submissions of Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Ms. Sujata Kashyap, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2.
A preliminary objection has been raised by Respondent No. 2 that the present writ petition is barred by laches. The grievance of the Petitioner admittedly pertains to grant of rebate for the years 1983, 1984 and 1985 and the writ petition was filed in 1991. There is no explanation for the delay in filing the writ petition. It is further submitted on merits that even in respect of the scheme of the Central Government the administrative powers are vested with Respondent No. 2 to either grant or withhold the rebate on terms and conditions decided by Respondent No. 2. As regards the Kanpur Expo, it is stated that although by a letter dated 30th April 1983 the societies were informed of the holding of the said Expo, there was no mention of availability of the rebate. The Central Government had issued a letter dated 17th June 1983 requiring claims to be filed for the grant of rebate through the State Government within six months from the rebate period. However, there was a complaint against the Petitioner society for which an inquiry was held by Respondent No. 3. Since the inquiry was not completed during the period up to which the rebate claims were entertained, the Petitioner was not extended the said relief for the Kanpur expo.
As regards the 15% special rebate on wholesale sales of handloom cloth, the condition that the society should get its stocks verified from the Director of Industries was not fulfilled. Consequently, by a letter dated 30th July 1984, the Petitioner was informed that its claims for the rebate could not be considered. As regards the mini Expo at Jaipur, by a letter dated 5th June 1986, the Petitioner was informed that its claims for the rebate could not have been entertained. A reference was also made to earlier letter dated 2nd February 1985 whereby the Petitioner was informed that no rebate would be allowed for participation in the Mini Expo. Respondent No. 2 denied having received the copy of the letter dated 7th January 1991 of the Central Government, which in any event was issued long after the Jaipur mini Expo.
This Court finds merit in the preliminary objection raised by the Respondent No. 2 that each of the three claims made by the Petitioner in the present writ petition are barred by laches. As is apparent from the rejoinder affidavit filed by the Petitioner, the date on which each of the claims fell due, according to the Petitioner, was 15th June 1983 in respect of the National Expo at Kanpur, 8th April 1985 in respect of the mini Expo at Jaipur and 27th December 1983 in respect of the grant of special rebate of 15% on wholesale sales of handloom cloth during the year 1983-84. Admittedly, the Petitioner did not choose to approach this Court till November 1991. The claims, therefore, are obviously barred by laches. Repeated making of representations for the said claims will not be a sufficient explanation for the laches.
As regards the mini Expo at Jaipur there was a letter dated 2nd February 1985, even prior to the holding of the said expo between 15th March 1985 and 7th April 1985, whereby all the concerned authorities were informed that no rebate on sales will be available. This was communicated by a letter dated 5th June 1986 addressed by the Director of Industries to the Petitioner. It was further reiterated on 28th June 1981. This Court finds that with the rejection of the Petitioner''s claims as regards the mini Expo at Jaipur having been communicated to it on 5th June 1986 itself, the Petitioner need not have waited till November 1991 to file the present petition in respect of the said claim. Here again, there is no satisfactory explanation for the laches. As regards the Kanpur Expo, the Petitioner has again chosen to wait for more than 8 years to file a petition in respect of the said claim.
This Court finds that there is no satisfactory explanation in the writ petition for the delay in approaching this Court. The petition fails on ground of laches and is dismissed as such.