1 mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1209 OF 1994 M/s.Mulji Devshi & Co. ) a Partnership firm duly ) registered under the ) provisions of the Indian ) Partnership Act, 1932 and ) Carrying on business inter ) alia at Mulji Devshi Building ) 116, Keshavji Naik Road, ) Bombay-400 009 )..PETITIONERS Versus 1.Union of India ) 2.The Union Secretary ) (Drawback) Government of ) India, Ministry of Finance, ) Department of Revenue, ) having his office at Jeevan ) 2 Deep, Parliament Street, ) New Delhi-110 001. ) 3.The Commissioner (Drawback) ) Department, Government of ) India, Ministry of Finance, ) Department of Revenue, ) having his office at Jeevan ) Deep, Parliament Street, ) New Delhi-110 001. ) 4.Assistant Collector of ) Customs, Draw Back Depart- ) -ment, New Customs House, ) Ballard Estate, ) Bombay-400 038. ) 5.Agricultural & Marketing ) Advisers to the Government ) of India, Directorate ) of Marketing and Inspection ) Ministry of Food and ) Agriculture, having his ) Office at CGO Building, ) 3rd Floor, 3rd Floor, New ) Marine Lines,Bombay-400 020 )...RESPONDENTS 3 Mr. Pankaj A. Sawant with Ms. Trupti M. Kapadia and Mr. V.C. Murlidharan i/b. Joy Legal Consultants for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Rao with Mr. J.B. Mishra for Respondents CORAM : FERDINO I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATED : 18TH SEPTEMBER , 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER FERDINO I. REBELLO, J.): The issue in this petition is similar to what was in issue in Writ Petition No.871 of 1994. The petitioners herein are also exporters of Castor Oil which was marketed as Castor Oil First Grade. The petitioners by their application dated September 13, 1993 applied for fixing of the rate in respect of the Castor Oil exported by them as Castor Oil First Grade between the period 22-6-1989 to 31st December, 1990. Unlike in the case of Petitioners in Writ Petition No.871 of 1994 Biotor Industries Ltd., there were no rates fixed in so far as Castor Oil exported by the petitioners. The petitioners had also approached this Court by way of a Writ Petition on account of refusal by the respondents 4 to fix the rates by way of Writ Petition No.1747 of 1993. By order dated 27th September, 1993 the respondents in respect of applications which were not processed pertaining to the period 22/23-6-1989 to 21st December, 1990 were directed to give a reasoned decision. The respondents by their order dated 6th February, 1991 rejected the claim of the petitioners. 2. In our opinion, once one exporter in respect of same goods has been allowed drawback facility may be on the fact that the rates had been fixed in his case for the period 1-6-1989 to 31-5-1990 it would not be open to the respondents in respect of another exporter to deny similar benefits. In our opinion, therefore, these petitioners will also be entitled to duty drawback for exports done between the period 1-6-1989 to 31st May, 1990. 3. For the period after 1-6-1990 to 20-12-1990 the petitioners herein to make a representation to the respondents within sixty days from today. If such an application is made considering what we have set out while disposing of Writ Petition No.871 of 1994 the 5 respondents to dispose of the same in the light of the observations in that petition at any rate not later than six months from the date of receipt of the application. To that extent petition partly allowed. 4. Rule made partly absolute accordingly. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. (D.G. KARNIK,J.) (FERDINO I.REBELLO,J.)