P. VISHWANATHA SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the communication dated 6th of February 1990, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-B, issued by the respondent and for a further direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner under Rule 15 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" ). ( 2 ) A few facts that may be relevant for the disposal of the writ petition, may be set out as hereunder: (a) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and marketing of Micro processor based computer systems and the petitioner imports large quantity of components for the purpose of computer systems and while importing the components, the petitioner pays the customs duty as applicable under the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is an exporter and the petitioner sells the computer system outside India and in terms of Rule 6 of the Rules, the petitioner made an application on 27th of June, 1989 before the Directorate of Drawbacks for the determination of the rate of drawback of duties of the customs paid in view of the export of certain computers manufactured by the petitioner-company to the sultanate of Oman during 1988; and in the said application, the petitioner also prayed for condonation of delay in filing the application as provided under the. proviso given to Rule 6 (1) (a) of the Rules; and pursuant to the said application, the petitioner received a communication from the Directorate of Drawback directing it to produce the proof of the date of export and to furnish customs authentication of the same. proviso given to Rule 6 (1) (a) of the Rules; and pursuant to the said application, the petitioner received a communication from the Directorate of Drawback directing it to produce the proof of the date of export and to furnish customs authentication of the same. According to the petitioner, the goods exported by the petitioner left India by an air craft belonging to Gulf Air; and M/s. Jet Air Private Limited, the general Sales Agents of the Gulf Air, had issued Transhipment certificate indicating the date of departure of the export of goods as 29th of April, 1989 and the petitioner relying upon the transhipment Certificate, had lodged an application for fixation of rate of duty drawback on 28th of June, 1989; however, subsequently, it was discovered by the petitioner that the goods exported by it had actually left by the flight on 24th of April, 1989 and not on 29th of April, 1989 as mentioned in the Transhipment certificate issued by M/s. Jet Air Private Limited; and thereafter, when the petitioner pointed out the error committed by M/s. Jet air Private Limited, in the Transhipment Certificate issued by them, with regard to the date of export of the goods made by the petitioner, they admitted the clerical error committed by them. It is the further case of the petitioner that since the Directorate of drawback was empowered to condone the delay of 30 days only in addition to 30 days permitted to file the application, the petitioner filed an application under Rule 15 of the Rules praying for condonation of delay of another 5 days; and the respondent, by means of communication Annexure-B, has rejected the prayer of the petitioner to condone the delay on the ground that the government has no power to condone the delay as the claim made by the petitioner was considered under Rule 6 or 7 of the Rules. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order/communication Annexure-B issued by the respondent rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking condonation of delay caused in filing the application for determination of drawback of duties of customs paid by the petitioner, requires to be quashed on the ground that the decision has been taken by the respondent in a mechanical manner and without application of mind with regard to the power conferred on the central Government to condone the delay caused in filing the application beyond 30 days in addition to 30 days period prescribed for filing the application. The learned Counsel pointed out that upto the period of 30 days beyond 30 days period prescribed under Rule 6 of the Rules, the central Government is conferred with the power to condone the delay caused in filing the application if it is satisfied that the manufacturer or exporter was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within a period of 30 days from the date of the export of such goods allowed under sub-rule (1) (a) of Rule 6 of the Rules and if the application is filed beyond 60 days from the date of the export of the goods, under rule 15 of the Rules, power is conferred on the Central Government to condone the delay irrespective of the period of delay. ( 4 ) SRI Sadashiva Reddy, learned Additional Central Government standing Counsel, resisted the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that the order impugned does not suffer from any error which calls for interference by this Court. He pointed out that since it is not in dispute that the application was filed beyond 60 days from the date of the export, the Central Government was justified in law in taking the view that it has no power to condone the delay either under Rule 6 or Rule 7 of the Rules. He submits that there is no error in the finding recorded by the Central Government jn the impugned order; and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the said order before this Court invoking the writ jurisdiction either under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He submits that there is no error in the finding recorded by the Central Government jn the impugned order; and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the said order before this Court invoking the writ jurisdiction either under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He also drew my attention to paragraph 3 of the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein it is stated that the prayer of the petitioner for condonation of delay was examined by the Ministry and the request of the petitioner was rejected. ( 5 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Standing Counsel, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this petition. It is not in dispute that the prayer of the petitioner for condonation of delay caused in filing the application, has not been considered under Rule 15 of the Rules and the same was considered only under Rule 6 or 7 of the Rules. It is true that even if sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay, if an application is filed beyond 60 days from the date of the export, the central Government has no power either under Rule 6 or under Rule 7 of the Rules to condone the delay caused in filing the application. How ever, the question that would fall for consideration is that when a request is made praying for condonation of delay caused in filing the application, in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 15 of the rules, whether the Central Government is required to consider the said application or not? ( 6 ) FOR the purpose of deciding this question, it is useful to refer to rules 6 (l) (a) and 15 of the Rules, which read as under:"6. Cases where amount or rate of drawback has not been determined. ( 6 ) FOR the purpose of deciding this question, it is useful to refer to rules 6 (l) (a) and 15 of the Rules, which read as under:"6. Cases where amount or rate of drawback has not been determined. (1) (a) where no amount or rate of drawback has been determined in respect of any goods, any manufacturer or exporter of such goods may, within thirty days from the date of export of such goods, apply in writing to the Central Government for the determination of the amount or rate of drawback therefor, stating all relevant facts including the proportion in which the materials or components are used in the production or manufacture of goods and the duties paid on such materials or components: provided that the Central Government may, if it is satisfied that the manufacturer or exporter was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application (within the aforesaid time), allow such manufacturer or exporter to file such application within a further period of thirty days. 15. Power to relax. If the Central Government is satisfied that in relation to the export of any goods, the exporter or his authorised agent has, for reasons beyond his control, failed to comply with any of the provisions of these rules and has thus not been entitled to drawback, it may, after considering the representations, if any, made by such exporter or agent, and for reasons to be recorded in writing, exempt such exporter or agent from the provisions of such rules and allow drawback in respect of such goods". As can be seen from the proviso to Rule 6 (1) (a) of the Rules, if the central Government is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for the delay caused in not filing the application within 30 days from the date of the export and within another 30 days from the said 30 days, i. e. , in all 60 days from the date of the export, it can condone the delay caused in filing the application filed seeking determination of the rate of drawback. However, Rule 15 of the Rules confers power on the Central government, if it is satisfied that in relation to the export of any goods, the exporter or bis authorised agent has, for reasons beyond his control, failed to comply with any of the provisions of the rules, has not been entitled to such determination of rate of drawback, for reasons to be recorded in writing, exempt such exporter or agent from the provisions of the rules and allow duty drawback in respect of such goods, which were exported. Therefore, in my view, though the power under the proviso given to sub-rule (l) (a) of Rule 6 confers power on the Central government to condone the delay caused in making the application, only for a period of 30 days in addition to the permissible limit of 30 days provided for making the application, Rule 15 of the Rules confers power on the Central Government, if the Central Government is satisfied that in relation to the export of any goods, the exporter or bis authorised agent has, for reasons beyond his control, failed to comply with any of the provisions of the rules and has not been entitled to drawback, it may, after considering the representations, if any, make such exporter or agent and for the reasons to be recorded in writing, exempt such exporter or agent from the provisions of such rules and allow drawback in respect of such goods. In the instant case, it is the case of the petitioner that on account of the error committed by M/s. Jet Air Private limited in issuing the Transhipment Certificate wherein it has, by mistake, stated that the goods were exported on 29th of April, 1989 instead of 24th of April, 1989, there was a delay of five days caused beyond 30 days in addition to 30 days limit prescribed for filing the application. Under these circumstances, whether the petitioner should be given exemption from the rigour of the limitation prescribed for making the application and it should be given benefit of determination of drawback of duties of customs paid on imported materials/components in respect of the export made by it, is a matter required to be considered by the central Government. Under these circumstances, whether the petitioner should be given exemption from the rigour of the limitation prescribed for making the application and it should be given benefit of determination of drawback of duties of customs paid on imported materials/components in respect of the export made by it, is a matter required to be considered by the central Government. Rule 15 of the Rules, in my view, undoubtedly confers power on the Central Government notwithstanding the power given to the Central Government under Rule 6 of the Rules, to condone the delay upto a limit of 30 days caused in filing the application, to consider the representation of the exporter and if a ground is made out, to exempt from the purview of the rule and allow drawback in respect of the goods exported. The power conferred under Rule 6 of the Rules to condone the delay in the circumstances set out in Rule 6, should not be understood as taking away power conferred on the Central Government under Rule 15 of the Rules to exempt from the purview of the rules and allow drawback in respect of the goods exported on consideration of the representation made by a^ij exporter on the merits of the claim made. As can be seen from the gland taken in the statement of objections, at paragraph 3 of the statement of objections, it is stated that as a matter of practice and policy, relaxation under Rule 15 of the Rules is not accorded for condonation of delay in submission of the application beyond the period allowed. It is useful to extract paragraph 3 of the statement of objections, which reads as hereunder:"that with reference to the averments made in para 7 of the petition, it is submitted that the petitioner had made an application to the Ministry to condone the delay by invoking Rule 15 as the delay exceeded the condonable period permissible under rule 6 or 7 of the Drawback Rules. The request was examined by the Ministry. As a matter of practice and policy, relaxation under rule 15 of the Drawback Rules is not accorded for condonation of delay in submission of the application in excess of the period, the government is empowered to condone under Rule 6 or 7 of the Drawback Rules". The request was examined by the Ministry. As a matter of practice and policy, relaxation under rule 15 of the Drawback Rules is not accorded for condonation of delay in submission of the application in excess of the period, the government is empowered to condone under Rule 6 or 7 of the Drawback Rules". Therefore, it is clear that though the power is conferred under Rule 15 of the Rules, as a matter of policy and practice, the request made by the petitioner for condonation of delay or exemption from the purview of the rules, was not considered by the Central Government. This is also clear from the impugned communication Annexure-B. When power is conferred on an Authority under the rules, the Authority concerned is under a statutory obligation to exercise the power conferred on it. The refusal to exercise power conferred on the Central Government under Rule 15 of the Rules would have serious consequences and affects the rights of an exporter. The power conferred in the very nature of things must be treated as quasi-judicial in nature. Such a power cannot be refused to be exercised only on the ground of practice and the policy decision taken by the Central Government. The prevailing practice or policies cannot override the statutory rights provided under the Act. The Central Government must consider the merits of the claim made and dispose of the application on merits. Admittedly, the same having not been done in the instant case, the impugned communication Annexure-B is liable to be quashed. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, this petition is allowed, the impugned communication annexure-B dated 6th of February, 1990 is quashed and the Central government is directed to consider the application/representation filed by the petitioner as per Annexure-A dated 10th of October, 1989 under rule 15 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971, as expeditiously as possible and at any event of the matter, not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Rule issued is made absolute. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of in terms stated above. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, in the circumstances of the case, no order is made as to costs. --- *** --- .