JUDGMENT
Nainar Sundaram, J.
1. The respondents in W.P. 1431 of 1990 are the appellants in this writ appeal. The petitioner in the writ petition is the respondent in this writ appeal. Convenience suggests that we refer to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petition. The petitioner imported by air 120 packages of Intensive Care Respirator System with accessories from Sweden. The petitioner availed of the exemption notification in respect of this import. The petitioner wanted to export the items to a purchaser in Moscow. However, there was a decline on the part of the respondents to make the necessary endorsement in the shipping bill so as to enable the petitioner to do the export. This obliged the petitioner to come before this Court by way of the writ petition seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the export of the items by making the necessary endorsement in the shipping bill. Before the learned single Judge, who heard the writ petition, the respondents would advance a theory that when the petitioner availing of the exemption notification made the import, the items imported could not be exported and must be utilised within the country. The learned single Judge repelled this contention put forth on behalf of the respondents and allowed the writ petition. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge.
2. Mr. P. Narasimhan, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel supported by Mr. P. Suriyaprakasam, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents the appellants in this writ appeal, would submit that the exemption has been accorded in the public interest and the intendment of the exemption was only for home consumption and the petitioner cannot be permitted to export the items to Moscow. The exemption notification as such does not stipulate that the items covered by the exemption should be consumed or used or utilised within the country and should not be exported. It is not possible to read something into the exemption notification, which is not explicit there. The well settled rule is that while the accord of exemption should have a strict construction, the scope and amplitude of the exemption should not be whittled down by importing limitations, not inserted and made explicit in the proceedings granting exemption. The learned single Judge, has in fact kept in mind this well settled proposition when he countenanced the case of the petitioner. It must be stated here that Schedule I referred to in paragraph 4 of the Exports (Control) Order, 1988 which says that no item therein can be exported unless it is covered by a valid licence, does not take in the items in question. This has also been taken note of by the learned single Judge. In the said circumstances, we do not find any warrant for interference with the order of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, this writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No Costs.
3. We find that pending the writ appeal, in C.M.P. Nos. 3034 and 3366 of 1990, order dated 7.3.1990, there has been a direction to the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee to the tune of rupees one crore. Now the writ appeal has been dismissed, the bank guarantee will stand discharged.