M. K. SHARMA ( 1 ) THE petitioners, herein, are Private Limited Companies and through these two writ petitions they have sought for a direction to the respondents to refund the application fees deposited by them for issuance of Value Based Advance Licence in terms of the Import Policy 92-97, together with interest at the rate of 17. 5% per annum with effect from the date of refund of the application till payment. As both the writ petitions involve identical facts and similar question fact, we propose to dispose of both the writ petitions by this common judgment and order. ( 2 ) WITH an idea of bringing in reform in the Trade Policy, Value Based Advance Licence scheme was introduced for five years for achieving stable policy providing greater flexibility within the overall value limits and without any quantitative restrictions. Accordingly Trade Policy AM 92-97 was introduced. According to Para 48 of the said Policy, an exporter was given option either to apply for Value Based Advance Licence or Quantity Based Advance Licence. In terms of the aforesaid Policy, the petitioner applied for the issue of Value Based Advance Licence and also deposited the prescribed licence fee. The details of the applications for grant of licence and the amount of fee in respect of each of them are as under: i. Application dated 12-8-93 with application fee Rs. 91. 921. 00 vide Challan No. 2744 dated 12-8-93 received by respondent No. 3 vide receipt No. 353206 dated 13- 8-93 as per Annexures B, B-l and B-2 . ii. Application dated 1-9-93 with application fee Rs. 97,225. 00 vide Bank Receipt No. 3103 received by respondent No. 3 vide receipt No. 12068 dated 2-9-93 as per Annexures c, C-1 and C-2 . iii. Application dated 8-9-93 with application fee Rs. 8,633. 00 vide Bank Receipt No. 3241 received by respondent No. 3 vide receipt No. 12986 dated 10-9-93 as per Annexures D,d-l and D-2 . The total amount of application fees thus paid was Rs. 1,97,779. 00 ( 3 ) HOWEVER, subsequent to the filing of the aforesaid applications there was a change in the aforesaid policy in terms of which the respondent No. 2 issued a Public Notice dated 14. 9. 1993 in respect of item in question namely polypropyline declaring it a sensitive item. 1,97,779. 00 ( 3 ) HOWEVER, subsequent to the filing of the aforesaid applications there was a change in the aforesaid policy in terms of which the respondent No. 2 issued a Public Notice dated 14. 9. 1993 in respect of item in question namely polypropyline declaring it a sensitive item. The said Public Notice farther laid down that henceforth, no Value Based Advance Licence would be issued and made provisions only for issuance of Quantity Based Advance Licence. Since the applications of the petitioner were for grant of Value Based Advance Licences and since no such licence could be given under the new policy adopted by the respondent No. 2, the petitioner submitted application asking for refund of the application fees submitted by it along with their applications. The respondent, however, insisted that the petitioner should submit revised applications in terms of the new policy and also in terms of the aforesaid Public Notice. Being so aggrieved by the actions of the respondents, the petitioner preferred TO the present writ petition claiming refund of the application fees deposited by the petitioner along with interest. C. W. P. 3338. 1995. ( 4 ) THE petitioner herein is also a Private Limited Company. In terms of Para 48 of the Trade Policy AM 92-97, the petitioner applied for the issue of Value Based Advance Licences under the following applications and also deposited the prescribed licence fee:- i. Application dated 12-8-93 with application fee Rs. 91,921. 00 vide Challan No. 2772 dated 13-8-93 received by respondent No. 3 vide receipt No. 353207 dated 13-8-93 as per Annexures b, B-l and B-2 . ii. Application dated 1-9-93 with application fee Rs. 97,83,3. 00 vide Bank Receipt No. 3104 received by respondent No. 3. vide receipt No. 12069 dated 2-9-93 as per Annexures C,c-1 and C-2 . iii. Application dated 8-9-93 with application fee Rs. 8,969. 00 vide Bank Receipt No. 3243 dated 7-9-93 received by respondent No. 3 vide receipt No. 7627 dated 13-9-93 as per Annexures D,d-1 and D-2 . The total amount of application fee thus paid was Rs. 1,98,723. 00 ( 5 ) SUBSEQUENTLY with the change in the Policy in respect of item in question namely, polypropyline declaring it a sensitive item, Public Notice was issued by the respondent No. 3 on 14. 9. 1993 doing away completely with grant of any Value Based Advance Licence. The total amount of application fee thus paid was Rs. 1,98,723. 00 ( 5 ) SUBSEQUENTLY with the change in the Policy in respect of item in question namely, polypropyline declaring it a sensitive item, Public Notice was issued by the respondent No. 3 on 14. 9. 1993 doing away completely with grant of any Value Based Advance Licence. Consequently, the petitioner who applied for grant of Value Based Advance Licences only filed application for refund of application fees deposited with the respondents in view of the changed circumstances and the changed policy of the Government not to grant any Value Based Advance Licence. The respondents, however, insisted that the petitioner should re-submit revised applications in terms of the aforesaid Public Notice and, therefore, the petitioner has preferred TO this petition claiming similar relief as that of the aforesaid writ petition. ( 6 ) MR. S. K. Bahadur appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners in these two writ petitions neither seek to challenge the validity of the Public Notice, nor do they intend to claim that they be declared entitled for grant of Value Based Licences. According to him, the simple case of the petitioners in these two writ petitions is that they be refunded all the amount deposited by them as application fees with the respondents for grant of Value Based Advance Licence in view of the fact that. there has been a changed policy under which grant of Value Based Advance Licence is no longer possible and, therefore, their applications have become infructuous. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a decision of this Court in C. W. P. 106/1995 in VMA Finance Private Limited Vs. Union of India and Ors. disposed of on 23. 8. 1995. ( 7 ) MR. Kanwaljit Singh appearing for the respondents while refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners REFERRED TO to the provisions of Appendix II of the "handbook of Procedures" and submitted that the procedure and the circumstances under which application fees could be refunded have been specifically laid down. According to him. the petitioners cannot get the refund of the Import Application fee in view of the conditions laid down in Appendix II of "handbook of Procedures - 1992-1997" which deals with the deposit/refund of Import Application Fee. According to him. the petitioners cannot get the refund of the Import Application fee in view of the conditions laid down in Appendix II of "handbook of Procedures - 1992-1997" which deals with the deposit/refund of Import Application Fee. He submitted that such fee is not otherwise refundable save and except when one of the three conditions laid down therein is fulfilled and in instant cases, the cases of the petitioners do not come within the pun lew of any of the said conditions and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to claim/get refund of the application fees deposited with the respondents. ( 8 ) PARAGRAPH 14 of the "handbook of Procedures" prescribes the fee that is to be paid by an applicant seeking for grant of an Import Export Licence. The said provision further provides that the scale of fee. mode of payment and procedure for refund of fees and the categories of persons exempted from the payment of fees are contained in Appendix II of the "handbook of Procedures". Para 6 of the said Appendix II deals with the mode for refund of application fees. Clause I of the said Para 6 which is relevant for the purpose of our case is quoted herein:- The fee once received will not be refunded except in the following circumstances, namely:- (i) Where the fee has been deposited in excess of the specified scale of fee: or (ii) Where the fee has been deposited but no application has been made; or (iii)Where the fee has been deposited in error but the applicant is exempt from payment of fee. Note: Fees paid in respect of Appeals made to the Directorate General of Foreign Trade and its Regional Licensing Authorities shall not be refunded under any circumstances. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, in order to get refund of the fee deposited by an applicant could be refunded only when one of the three conditions laid down therein is fulfilled. Sub-clause 2 is relevant for the purpose of decision of our case. In the present case, the petitioners submitted their applications claiming for refund of the application fees deposited by them with the respondents on the ground that they had deposited the fees, but no applications had been made by them. Sub-clause 2 is relevant for the purpose of decision of our case. In the present case, the petitioners submitted their applications claiming for refund of the application fees deposited by them with the respondents on the ground that they had deposited the fees, but no applications had been made by them. ( 10 ) CLAUSE 9 of paragraph 6 further provides that in cases where the Licensing Authority rejects the request for refund it would indicate the reasons for such rejection, It is stated that inspite of the applications filed by the petitioners for refund of their application fee, the Licensing Authority except for insisting on submission of revised applications in terms of the new policy did not take any steps nor have they rejected the request for refund so far. However, in the counter affidavit filed in the present writ petitions, the grounds for rejection of the application of the petitioners for refund of the application fees have been cited as non-fulfillment of any of the conditions laid down in Appendix II of "handbook of Procedures - 1992-1997". The specific case of the respondents in the counter affidavit is that the fees deposited by the petitioners are not refundable as their cases do not come within the ambit of any of the three exceptional circumstances mentioned in Appendix II. ( 11 ) IN this context, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in the case of VMA Finance Private Limited Vs. Union of India and. Ors. (supra), wherein, this Court held that the case of the petitioners therein would fall in category (ii) and that it would be deemed that no application was made by the petitioners for issue of Quantity Based Advance Licence. This court while disposing of the aforesaid petition on 23 8. 1995 further held that since despite letters, petitioners did not revise the applications and did not submit any application in accordance with the Public Notice, the refusal to refund the application fee was not legal and justified. This court while disposing of the aforesaid petition on 23 8. 1995 further held that since despite letters, petitioners did not revise the applications and did not submit any application in accordance with the Public Notice, the refusal to refund the application fee was not legal and justified. ( 12 ) IN the instant case, on appreciation of the records placed before us, we find that the applications submitted by the petitioners for grant of Licence were for issuance of Value Based Advance Licence and not Quantity Based Advance Licence, although at that relevant point of time, an exporter was given an option to apply either for Value Based or Quantity Based Advance Licence. The petitioners in all their applications requested for grant of Value Based Advance Licence. However, with the change in the Trade Policy and doing away with issuance of Value Based Advance Licence with effect from 14. 9. 1993 no Value Based Advance Licence could be issued by the respondents and, therefore, for all intents and purposes the applications submitted by the petitioners for issuance of Value Based Advance Licence would be deemed to have lapsed. Consequently, the respondents could not have insisted on the petitioners to submit revised applications in terms of the changed Trade Policy of the respondents. It is apparent that the petitioners did not submit any applications for issuance of Quantity Based Advance Licence at any point of time and, therefore, since they have deposited the application fees earlier it would be deemed that no application has been moved by the petitioners for issue of Quantity Based Advance Licence. Consequently, in our considered opinion, the cases of the petitioners would attract category (ii) of the conditions and, therefore, they are entitled for refund of the application fee deposited by them with the respondents. ( 13 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the refusal to refund the application fee is arbitrary and illegal. We, therefore, allow these two writ petitions and direct the respondents to refund the application fees to the petitioners within a period of four weeks, failing which, it would carry an interest at the rate of 18% per annum from today. In the result, the two writ petitions stand allowed to the extent indicated above, but, without any costs.