M.L. Anand vs Union Of India (Uoi)
2004 Latest Caselaw 122 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Petitioner, who was working as Section Officer in the Ministry of External Affairs, was posted in Mozambique, Africa during the period 1984-86. He returned to India on 1.10.1986. Petitioner by this writ petition, seeks quashing of the letter dated 29.3.1996 of the Ministry of External Affairs rejecting petitioner's representation for repatriation of sale proceeds of the car and holding that draft of Rs. 14,950/- was in order.

2. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the Union of India to pay a sum of Rs. 61,290.96 (Rupees sixty-one thousand two hundred ninety and ninety-six paise only) with interest at 24 per cent per annum from the date of deposit. Petitioner also prays for award of costs.

3. By letter dated 29.3.1996, appearing at page 26 of the paper book, respondent remitted to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 14,950/- (Rupees fourteen thousand nine hundred and fifty only) by a Reserve Bank of India bank draft issued by the Embassy of India at Maputo, Mozambique. The said amount which was remitted represented the rupee equivalent of sale proceeds of the Mazda car sold by the petitioner prior to returning to India. The amount had been computed by the respondent at the then prevailing commercial rate of exchange. Petitioner's case is that he was entitled to repatriate and be paid the amount in Indian rupees converted on the basis of prevailing official exchange rate.

4.Respondent relies on the sanction letter dated 26.2.1987, appearing at page 18 of the paper book which mentions the sanction amount as Rs. 57,475/-. The said sanction letter dated 26.2.1987 is in the following terms:

"Subject : Remittance facilities by Reserve Bank of India draft to Shri M.L. Anand formerly Registrar, Embassy of India, Maputo.

Sir,

I am directed to refer to your letter No. Map/586/2/84 dated 30.9.86 on the above subject and to convey the sanction of the President to the remittance to India by Shri M.L. Anand formerly Registrar in your Mission of a sum of Rs. 57,475/- (Rupees fifty seven thousand four hundred and seventy-five only) being sale proceeds of his car by RBI draft against deposit in local currency. The sanction is being granted on the condition that no normal banking channels are available for repatriation of the amount from Maputo and that repatriation by means of RBI draft should be at the prevailing official or commercial rate of exchange whichever is favorable to the Government on the date the amount is credited to the Mission's account. The usual bank commission may please be realised from him and credited to Government account.

You may please ensure that the RBI draft to be issued should be endorsed 'Not creditable into non-resident Account held in India.'

This issue with the concurrence of Finance Branch vide their Dy. No. 647/ FIN.III/87 dated 20.2.1987."

5. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that though the petitioner returned to India in October, 1986, he had left the proceeds of the car with a colleague of his, which were deposited in the Government treasury on 19.3.1987. Learned Counsel submits that the sale proceeds were subject to the condition that repatriation would be at the prevailing official or commercial rate of exchange whichever is favorable to the Government on the date the amount is credited to the Mission's account. He submits that there was a lot of disparity between the commercial rate of exchange and official rate of exchange. The commercial rate of exchange was Metical 3.02=Re.1.00. The amount deposited with the Embassy after conversion on the prevailing commercial rate worked out to Rs. 14,950/- and this amount was paid to the petitioner after deducting Metical 1.39, as bank commission. He submits that though the sanction letter mentions the figure of Rs. 57,475/- it also specifically mentions that the repatriation would be at the prevailing official or commercial rate of exchange, which was favorable to the Government on the date the amount is credited to the Mission's account.

6. Learned Counsel for the respondent also submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed on account of inordinate delay and laches. Petitioner was notified of the respondent's position as far back as on 21.9.1987 that the amount payable was only Rs. 14,950 /-. Petitioner has filed this writ petition after a gap of 9 years. Making of repeated representations cannot be an answer to the inordinate delay, especially when petitioner had been duly notified that in accordance with the general instructions and financial rules dealing with repatriation of sale proceeds of car as well as conversion facility, no further amount was payable. He refers to the Government instructions contained in the Additional Instructions, which are as under:

"The Ministry of External Affairs may recommend conversion facility for purchase of car direct to the Reserve Bank of India subject to the following guidelines:

(i) The conversion facility will be allowed at the official or commercial rate of exchange whichever is beneficial to the Government.

(ii) Any proposal to sanction conversion facilities in free foreign exchange in the case of an official posted to countries where rupee facilities are normally admissible (including Bilateral Group of countries) will continue to be referred to Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs for approval.

7. The position, which emerges from the foregoing narration of facts and submissions of the Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent, is that the respondent duly sanctioned and approved of the remittance facilities of the sale proceeds of the car belonging to the petitioner. Sanction letter dated 26.2.1987 mentioned the figure of Rs. 57,475/-. The sanction letter itself recognised that normal banking channels were not available and the repatriation amount should be at the prevailing official or commercial rate of exchange, whichever was more favorable to the Government. The sale proceeds of the car in local currency of Maputo were deposited on behalf of the petitioner in the embassy/mission on 19.3.1987. There was a lot of disparity between the official rate of exchange and the commercial rate of exchange. Based on the commercial rate of exchange respondents have issued the draft of Rs. 14,950/-. Petitioner was aggrieved as the same was drastically lower than the amount of Rs. 57,475/- mentioned in the sanction letter. Petitioner contends that there was no direct commercial rate between Metical and Rupees available on 6.3.1987. Accordingly, official rate had to be applied. Respondent relying on the sanctioned letter submitted that where commercial rate in the direct currency is not available, resort is to computation of rate by taking the rate of US $, as has been done in the instant case.

8. Despite the petitioner having been notified of this position as far back as on 21.9.1987 and the reliance by the Government on the financial instructions as noted in paras 4 and 6 above, the petitioner chose to file the writ petition only in October, 1996. There is thus inordinate delay of more than 9 years in moving the Court. This apart there is no challenge to the said instructions.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner had feebly attempted to urge that certain other persons had been given the benefit of repatriation at the official exchange rate, which was higher and reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Writ No. 4355/1978 titled H.L. Bajaj v. Union of India and Anr. decided on 18.1.1980. Neither the petition nor details regarding the particulars of payments made as contended or approved by the Supreme Court have been filed on record nor is there a mention of the same in the writ petition. A perusal of the copy of the cited Order does not throw any light either on the basis for refund rather the Order mentions that the decision was taken in the peculiar facts of the case which are not known. The respondents have filed an affidavit stating that the said record is not available despite diligent search. In these circumstances, the same cannot advance the case of the petitioner. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am constrained to dismiss the writ petition. Writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.