Point of law : Relief - Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot waive payment of interest, which is statutory - Such relief, if at all it can be granted, will be a relief in equity. It is well settled that equity cannot operate against statutory law.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. As a part of its business activities and to cater to the export market the petitioner availed the facility of an advance licence bearing No.01010015588 dated 31-03-2004 which enabled the petitioner to import raw materials and packaging materials without payment of duty and upon the condition that the petitioner would achieve a specified export obligation both in terms of value and in quantity. The petitioner states that due to circumstances beyond its control it could not achieve the export obligation within the specified time and therefore it requested an extension of the validity period which was rejected by order dated 22-01-2008 of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner thereupon preferred a review petition before the 1st respondent. Such a review petition is also provided for in terms of the provisions contained in a Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009. When the review petition was pending an attempt was made to invoke the bank guarantee provided by the petitioner requiring the petitioner to approach this Court through W.P (C) No.8990/2008. The invocation of the bank guarantee was stayed by this court. Finally by Ext.P2 judgment dated 05-02-2013 the review petition was directed to be considered and disposed of. After the aforesaid judgment of this court, the review petition was taken up for consideration and Ext.P4 communication was issued by the 2nd respondent informing the petitioner that the review petition had not been considered favourably. The review petition appears to have been considered by the Policy Relaxation Committee, the minutes of which have been produced as Ext.P5. The only relief was that granted to the petitioner as is evident from a reading of Ext.P5 is that the petitioner may opt to get its case regularised in terms of para 4.28 of the Handbook of Procedures accompanying the policy. It appears that following the rejection of the review petition the petitioner paid the entire duty amount of Rs.33,27,245/-on 27-08-2013 (evidenced by Ext.P8). Thereafter the petitioner was served with Ext.P9 notice requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be taken against it for failure to regularise the matter in terms of para 4.28 of the Handbook of Procedures as directed in the Minutes of the Policy Relaxation Committee which considered the review petition. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice through Ext.P10. It was informed that the duty amount had already been remitted and that the petitioner is waiting for information from the 4th respondent (the Commissioner of Customs) regarding any amount that is further payable. Possibly in response to this, the 4th respondent informed the petitioner that in addition to the duty amount of Rs.33,27,245/-paid, an amount of Rs.45,10,709/-is due as interest for the period up to 27-08-2013. It is thus challenging Exts.P5, P9 & P11 that this writ petition has been filed.

2. I have heard Sri. C.K. Karunakaran for the petitioner and Ms Krishna, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The principal contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that Ext.P5 proceedings of the Policy Relaxation Committee shows that a decision on the petitioner's review petition was arbitrarily taken. He would further contend that at any rate, the petitioner is not liable for payment of any interest for the period during which the review petition was pending before the competent authority. In support of this contention the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Chand and others v. Union of India and others; (1994) 1 SCC 44 and Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim; (1997) 6 SCC 71 and also the judgment of this Court in John v. Executive Officer; 1992 (1) KLT 562. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would however submit that the terms and conditions upon which the advance lice