Prakash Narain, J. (Oral) ( 1 ) THIS is an application by M/s Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. Private Ltd. and Shri Laxmiprasad Goenka for grant of a certificate under clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Article 133 (1) of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) THE applicants had filed Civil Writ No. 9 of 1971 in this court challenging the communication dated 28th June, 1969, issued by the Director-General of Technical Development, Government of India, addressed to the Deputy Iron and Steel Controller recommending for rejection the application of the first applicant for grant of an Import Licence, the order dated 4th August, 1969, whereby the application of the first applicant for grant of Import Licence was rejected, the recommendation of the Director General Technical Development dated 21st April, 1970, recommending for rejection the application of applicant No. I for grant of an import licence for a subsequent period and the order of rejection thereof passed on 22nd June, 1970, and the appellate order dated the 24th November, 1970. These orders and communications were all quashed by a writ issued by the learned single Judge of this court and a direction was issued to the Director General of Technical Development to sponsor the application of the first applicant for import licences for import of 24g steel sheets for fabrication of bitumen drums for the first six months of each of the licensing periods April 1968 to March 1969, April 1969 to March 1970 and April 1970 to March 1971. A direction was also issued to the Union of India, Chief Controller of Improts and Exports, the Assistant Iron and Steel Controller, and Shri Sukumar Ghose, Deputy Assistant Iron and Steel Controller, to re-consider the applications of the first applicant for the grant of import licences prayed for therein with a direction to the Director-General of Technical Development that he should sponsor the application, if filed by the first applicant within one month of the judgment for issue of the said import licences for the second six months of each licensing period which have already been enumerated above. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge, the Union of India and others who are respondents in the present application, preferred TO L. P. A. No. 300 of 1971 in this court. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge, the Union of India and others who are respondents in the present application, preferred TO L. P. A. No. 300 of 1971 in this court. The said appeal was allowed by this Bench of the High Court by judgment dated 23rd February, 1972. The applicants wish to appeal to the Supreme Court and hence the present application for grant of a certificate. ( 3 ) MR. Ravinder Narain, the learned Counsel for the applicants, urges that he is entitled to a certificate under all the three clauses of Article 133 (1) of the Constitution. The relevant provision of the Constitution reads as under:- "133. (1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order in a civil proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court certifies- (a) that the amount or value of the subject-matter of the dispute in the court of first instance and still in dispute on Appeal was and is not less than twenty thousand rupees or such other sum as may be specified in that behalf by Parliament by law ; or (b) that the judgment, decree or final order involves directly or indirectly some claim or question respecting property of the like amount or value; or (c) that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court; and, where the judgment, decree or final order appealed from affirms the decision of the court immediately below in any case other than a case REFERRED TO to in sub-clause (c), if the High Court further certifies that the appeal involves some substantial question of law. 2) ** ** ** 3) ** ** **. " ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the averments in the writ petition the import licences that were applied for by the applicants and which were refused for the various licensing periods were of a value exceeding twenty thousand rupees. The judgment of the learned, single Judge was reversed by the Letters Patent Bench. It is, therefore, contended that clauses (a) and (b) of Article 133 (1) are both attracted. 552 Clauses (a) and (b) are independent of each other and the construction of one of them is not affected by that of the other. The judgment of the learned, single Judge was reversed by the Letters Patent Bench. It is, therefore, contended that clauses (a) and (b) of Article 133 (1) are both attracted. 552 Clauses (a) and (b) are independent of each other and the construction of one of them is not affected by that of the other. In order to find out whether clause (a) is attracted what has to be seen is the value of the subject-matter in dispute and not the value of the benefit that may be derived from the property. Where the subject-matter of the dispute is capable of a precise and arithmetical valuation, clause (a) will apply and not otherwise. In the present case the dispute is with regard to the right to the grant of a particular import licence. The import licence itself may be for a particular sum of money but the point in controversy is the right to receive it. This right may be valued at the value of the licence itself, but mere issue of an import licence does not make it obligatory on the licencee to import goods to the full extent of the value of the licence. Therefore, receive a distinction will have to be made in the right and the value of the property and in our view Cl. (a) would not be attracted Mr. B. N. Kirpal, the learned counsel for the respondents, cites before us the decision of the Supreme Court in Mis Shree Krishna Gyanodaya Sugar Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar and others, a. I. R. 1970 SC 2041 (1) which fortifies us in coming to the above conclusion. ( 5 ) WE, however, feel that clause (b) of Article 133 (1) may be attracted in the present case. As was laid down by the Supreme Court in Chittar Mal vs. Shah Pannalal Chandulal, AIR 1965 SC 1440 (2) "to attract the application of Art. 133 (l) (b) it is essential that. there must be, besides other conditions, a judgment involving directly or indirectly some claim or question respecting property of an amount or value not less than Rs. 20,000. 00. The variation in the language used in cls. (a) and (b) of Art. 133 (1) pointedly highlights the conditions which attract the application of the two clauses. Under cl. there must be, besides other conditions, a judgment involving directly or indirectly some claim or question respecting property of an amount or value not less than Rs. 20,000. 00. The variation in the language used in cls. (a) and (b) of Art. 133 (1) pointedly highlights the conditions which attract the application of the two clauses. Under cl. (a) what is decisive is the amount or value of the subject-matter in the Court of first instance and "still in dispule" in appeal to the Supreme Court; under cl. (b) it is the amount or value of the property respecting which a claim or question is involved in the judgment sought to be appealed from. . . " Since the value of the licence for each period was over Rs. 20,000. 00, at least indirectly claim or question regarding those licences of those values are involved and the judgment sought to be appealed against is one of reversal. The case is certified as fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. ( 6 ) CLAUSE (c) of Art. 133 (1) of the Constitution also in our opinion is attracted in the present case and we certify the case as fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court inasmuch as important questions of law and interpretation affecting private rights of the first applicant and of general public importance, because of the interpretation to be placed on the import policy of. the Government. are involved. A Bench of this court in Delhi Administration vs. The State of Haryana, AIR 1969 Delhi 58, (3) held that where the question raised is of sufficient public importance so as to justify a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court, a certificate under Art. 133 (1) (c) should be granted. The points involved in this case not only relate to the meaning to be attached to the term "actual user" but also the scope of the words "certifying essentiality of import" which has to be done by sponsoring departments under the Import Policy of the Government in case of scheduled industries. The points involved in this case not only relate to the meaning to be attached to the term "actual user" but also the scope of the words "certifying essentiality of import" which has to be done by sponsoring departments under the Import Policy of the Government in case of scheduled industries. Does certifying essentiality of import connote that the essentiality has to be determined by taking an over all view of the economy of the country and weighing the relative importance of imports by one or the other type of industry keeping in view the various factors like availability of foreign exchange, impact of imports on other items of relatively greater priority in the larger interest of the overall economy of the country, the need to conserve and utilise foreign exchange and the requirements of the country to give precedence to one industry or the other in the overall economic development for the benefit of the people or does it mean the requirement of a particular industry alone divorced from the requirements of other industries in the country ? Another point which, inter alia, arises for decision is whether any monopoly is created in favour of a particular industry if in the overall interest of the economy of the country preference is given to that industry for imports in a particular licensing period and no imports are allowed to any other industry of an identical item of import. ( 7 ) WE, therefore, certify his case as a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court under clauses (b) and (c) of Art. 133 (1) of the Constitution of India. Let the appropriate certificate issue. No orders are made as to costs.