ORDER : S.N. Variava, J. This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 9-8-1995 of the Karnataka High Court. The writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows : during the war between India and Pakistan in 1965, the Government of Pakistan passed an Ordinance by which all properties of Indian nationals and Indian companies vested in the Custodian of Enemy Properties. As a result of the Ordinance, all Indians were divested of their properties in Pakistan. The Government of India had issued a similar Ordinance by which all properties of Pakistanis in India were taken over by the Government of India. As Indian nationals had lost their properties, the Government of India, Ministry of Foreign Trade published a Resolution dated 15-3-1971. That resolution provided that an ad hoc interim relief, in the form of ex gratia grant from the Consolidated Fund of India, at 25% of the value of verified claims restricted to a maximum of Rs 25. lakhs, may be made to all Indian nationals and Indian companies. The Custodian of Enemy Properties settled the claims made by a lot of persons including the appellant. The Custodian of Enemy Properties evaluated the 25% value of the appellant's property to be Rs 3,15,463.82. This was paid to the appellant on execution of the bond as required. The appellant, after accepting this amount, made a representation that the valuation should be done on the basis of market value as in 1965. 3. It appears that on 4-10-1973 an inter-Ministerial meeting was held in the Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi. At this meeting, it was decided that in the cases of the appellant and one Oberoi Hotel there should be a verification on the basis of the value of land in 1965. A panel was appointed to look into the valuation. The appellant received a notice on 6-7-1974 to appear before this panel. They appeared before the panel and presented their evidence and claimed that the value of their property in 1965 was Rs. 2,69,65,708. The panel thereafter decided that the 25% value of the appellant's property less what had already been paid amounted to Rs 29,60,961.20. The panel recommended that this amount be paid to the appellant. The appellant made various representations to the Government to pay the amount. All such representations were rejected by the Government. 2,69,65,708. The panel thereafter decided that the 25% value of the appellant's property less what had already been paid amounted to Rs 29,60,961.20. The panel recommended that this amount be paid to the appellant. The appellant made various representations to the Government to pay the amount. All such representations were rejected by the Government. The first of such rejection being as early as 22-2-1979. 4. In 1987, the appellant filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court praying, inter alia, that the decision of the panel be treated as binding and that the Government be directed to pay the sum of Rs 29,60,961.20. The Single Judge of the High Court issued directions to the Government to pay this amount. The appeal of the Government has been allowed by the impugned judgment. In the impugned judgment, it has been held that there were gross laches and delay in filing the petition. It has been held that there was no enforceable decision which gave any right to the appellant to file a writ petition. It was held that the decision of the panel was merely recommendatory. Under these circumstances, the appeal was allowed and the writ petition was dismissed. 5. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning given in the impugned judgment. The decision of the panel was merely recommendatory. It gave no enforceable right to the appellant. Further, the appellant had already accepted the amount which had been calculated by the Custodian of Enemy Properties. We also see no substance in the submission that there was discrimination against the appellant inasmuch as the Government accepted the recommendation qua one Bristol Hotel but did not accept the recommendation qua the appellant. The Government has given a valid reason saying that in cases where the claims are by the company they have calculated the 25% value on the basis of book value whereas so far as Bristol Hotel is concerned, the calculation was on the basis of market value because an individual was involved. We, therefore, see no discrimination. In any event, it is for the Government to decide what valuation is to be adopted. So long as there is reasonable classification, it is not for this Court to interfere. 6. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.