IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6381 of 2009(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.MARDEC.R.K.LATEX PRIVATE LIMITED, ANAMALLAIS HOUSE ANNEXE, THRISSUR-680 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY, MR.S.BABU SURESH. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE RUBBER BOARD, POST BOX NO.1122, SUB JAIL ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 002. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE, UDYOG BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110 011. 3. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, UDYOG BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110 011. SC FOR R1 SRI. JOSEPH KODIANTHARA BY ASG SR. P. PARAMAESWARAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.6381 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard the counsel for the Ist respondent Sri. Joseph Kodianthara and ASG for R2 and R3. 2. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P20, an order passed by the first respondent dealing with the claim of the petitioner for export incentive. A reading of Ext.P20 shows that the claim has been examined and that the claim made by the petitioner relates to 11th Five year plan period 2007-2012. On that basis it is also stated that there is no budget allocation available for this purpose. 3. However, as is evident from Ext.P7, the order issued by the 2nd respondent, the claim made by the petitioner pertains to the year 2004-05. It has been so found in Ext.P12 common judgment in WP(c).Nos.4114/06 and 4159/06 also. WP(c).No.6381/09 /2/ 4. Therefore, the finding in Ext.P20 that the claim of the petitioner does not pertain to the 10th Five year plan period of 2002-2007 is incorrect. For that reason Ext.P20 has to be quashed and I do so. 5. The first respondent is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner as directed in Ext.P12 judgment, on the basis that the claim made by the petitioner pertains to the year 2004-05. Order shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.6381/09 /2/