BALIA, J. - (1.) THIS Special Appeal is filed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 12. 09. 1995 by which the writ petition filed by the original petitioner, whose legal representatives are the present appellants, was dismissed.
(2.) THE facts, relevant for the present purposes, are that on 20. 07. 1982 the Central Govt. in exercise of its powers under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 had notified certain exemptions/concessions in Custom Duty payable on import of motor vehicle by a handicapped person which has been specially adapted for his use, in pursuance of which the petitioner made an application for grant of exemption certificate before the competent authority on 19/20. 10. 1982. According to the petitioner, his left arm was permanently disabled having suffered paralysis. On 9. 12. 82, a querry was directed to the petitioner concerning his income, which was replied on 18. 12. 82, however, the application was returned vide letter dated 31. 5. 1983 with an advise to apply afresh in pursuance of the new exemption scheme announced by the Govt. of India, referred to in the petition as the second scheme. THE petitioner having come to know that in like circumstances High Court of Delhi has directed and the Central Govt. has agreed to consider the applications, which have been received by it on or before 28th Dec. , 1982, and the petitioner falling in he same category also filed this writ petition before this Court. It appears, meanwhile the second scheme has also lapsed and the third scheme came into being through the Export-Import policy for the year 1984-85 which according to the petitioner was more liberal than the first scheme so far as identifying disability was concerned. The second scheme has confined the exemption to the car having value not exceeding Rs. 65,000/- and capacity not exceeding 1000 C. C. The petitioner, however, submitted an application under Import & Export Policy 1984-85 on 12. 07. 1984. Before the application could be decided, fourth scheme was published on 7. 1. 85, under which the capacity of the car, which could be imported by a disabled importer, was increased to 2000cc, and finally on 24. 05. 1985 the petitioner was issued licence to import Isuzu Asaka 2000cc Diesel Car fitted with disability gadgets and the petitioner availed the import as per said licence in 1985. This petition has been filed inter-alia on the ground that had the petitioner's application under the first scheme or the second scheme was considered or allowed, he could have availed the benefit of concession but he has wrongfully been deprived of such concession by default of the respondents to consider his application. The representation of the petitioner to allow him concession on the import of car in pursuance of the licence issued on 24. 04. 1985, as was available under the first scheme, was rejected by the Finance Ministry on 20. 09. 1985. The relief claimed by the petitioner is to seek a mandamus to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner dated 19/20. 10. 1982 and his application dated 12. 07. 1984 on merit and to treat the import licence to the petitioner as having been issued under the first scheme, and/or in the second scheme by issuing the writ of mandamus. Consequently, a claim of refund of 50% of customs duty paid by him ad valorem is also made.
(3.) LEARNED Single Judge has not found merit in this petition and has rejected the writ petition. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended in the first instance that petitioner is entitled to be treated at par with all those persons who had applied prior to 28th Dec. , 1982 to avail benefit of the first scheme of concession to disabled persons on import of a motor vehicle adapted for use by disabled person, as have been availed by persons in pursuance of directions issued by Delhi High Court on more than one occasion. The Central Govt. itself has decided to consider all applications under the first scheme as were pending on 28th Dec. , 1982. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Delhi High Court in S. P. Gupta vs. Union of India & Anr. (1), M. S. Baid vs. Union of India (2), and Sh. Krishan Kumar vs. Union of India & Anr. All the three decisions are founded on the premise that concession which was notified by issuing a public notice on 20. 07. 1982 could be withdrawn only by another notification of rescission and not by decision on files by the Ministers. Therefore, notwithstanding that the Finance Minister has taken the decision on file on 23rd Dec. , 1982 to discontinue with the scheme but was actually rescinded only in May, 1983, the applications which were pending on 23rd Dec. , 82 could not be denied consideration for that reason alone, and therefore, the directions were issued. ;