JUDGMENT
Bharucha, J.
1. We are concerned in this writ petition with two bonds given by the petitioner as security for performance of his obligations under the Export Promotion Scheme, which was, at the relevant time, in force.
2. We shall deal with the bond in the sum of Rs. 32,550/- first. That bond was issued at the petitioner’s instance by the Mercantile Bank Ltd. on 23rd December, 1967. By the letter dated 30th August 1969, the petitioner was informed by the Assistant Controller of Imports and Exports that, since he had failed to fulfill the export obligation undertaken by him against the said bond, his guarantor bank had been directed to forfeit the guarantee amount and forward the receipted challan, which had since been received. The said bond was, therefore, treated as cancelled. That this was done is indicated by a certificate dated 16th April 1982 addressed by the petitioner’s bankers, Mercantile Bank Ltd., to the petitioner. The certificate states that the said bond had been forfeited by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports by the letter dated 10th July 1969 and the amount of Rs. 32,550/-, was deposited by the Mercantile Bank Ltd. in the Reserve Bank of India on 25th July 1969. On 22nd September 1982, the Assistant Chief Controller of Imports and Exports informed the petitioner that as he had produced the necessary documentary evidence in proof that he had effected exports to the required extent in compliance with the terms and conditions of the said bond for Rs. 32,550/- the said bond “shall hereby treated as redeemed”. The petitioner was asked to approach the Administrative Section of the Assistant Chief Controller of Imports and Exports’ office for the Treasury Challan for the refund. On 19th November 1982 the Controller of Imports and Exports sent to the petitioner a Refund Bill for Rs. 32,550/- which was to be presented after being receipted to him for onwards transmission to the Regional Pay and Account Office, Bombay. This was done on 16th December 1982. The said Controller (Admn.) informed the petitioner that the receipted bill along with the sanctioning order had been forwarded to the Regional pay and Accounts Office for necessary action. On 28th June 1983, the said Controller wrote to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi, to clarify that the refund in the amount of Rs. 32,550/- was not on account of application fee but was on account of redemption of the said bound for Rs. 32,550/- and, therefore, the question of submission of application for refund within the prescribed time limit did not arise. The Chief Controller was asked for early advice in the matter as the petitioner was pressing hard for the refund. A copy of this letter was forwarded to the petitioner. On 15th November 1983, the Assistant Chief Controller of Imports and Exports wrote to the petitioner that it had not been possible for the petitioner to establish that the bond amount of Rs. 32,550/- had been deposited by it in the Government Treasury so that the question of refund of the forfeited amount did not arise.
3. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents this position is reiterated and it is stated that before the petitioner could claim the refund of the said amount of Rs. 32,550/-, it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to establish that its bankers had deposited the said amount in the Government Treasury. To the affidavit-in-rejoinder a letter dated 26th May 1980 written by the Assistant Chief Controller of Imports and Exports to the petitioner has been annexed which states, with reference to the said bond for Rs. 32,550/-, that the “amount has already been deposited in Government account by the guarantor Bank” and the matter had been referred to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports who was the competent authority for ordering refund of the forfeited amount.
4. The certificate of the Mercantile Bank Ltd. establishes the deposit of Rs. 32,550/- in the Reserve Bank of India. The letter of the Assistant Chief Controller of Imports and Exports dated 15th November 1983 also says that the said amount had been deposited in the Government treasury. The petitioner was sent a Refund Bill for being receipted. That receipted Refund Bill was sent by the respondents to the Regional Pay and Accounts Office. It can hardly, in these circumstances, now be contended that the petitioner had to establish that the amount of Rs. 32,550/- had been deposited in the Government treasury.
5. Mr. Devadhar, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that it was for the petitioner to establish, having regard to the Import Trade Control Policy then in force, that the amount was deposited in the appropriate account. At no time heretofore was the petitioner asked to do this and the petitioner cannot be expected to do so after 22 years. There is no doubt that the amount was deposited to the credit of the Union of India and the Union of India must refund it to the petitioner.
6. The other bond for the same purpose was in the sum of Rs. 50,085/-. An appeal against the forfeiture thereof was filed on 12th May 1978 and it still remains to be disposed of. We shall direct that this appeal shall be disposed of within eight weeks from today.
7. Accordingly, the petition is made absolute. The respondents are directed (a) to pay to the petitioner the sum of Rs. 32,550/- within eight weeks form today and (b) to dispose of the appeal in respect of Bond No. 209/70-71 for Rs. 50,085/-, which was forfeited on 9th September 1976, within eight weeks from today. The respondents shall pay to the petitioner the costs of the petition.