JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE petitioners are a partnership firm and are carrying on business of exporting diamonds. The petitioners are a recognised export house within the meaning of the relevant import policies. ( 2. ) THE Controller of Imports and Exports issues two types of licences : (1) Advance Licences, and (2) Imprest Licences. An Advance Licence is a term where the import is allowed under the Duty Exemption Scheme, while in case of Imprest Licence, the import is allowed outside the Duty Exemption Scheme. The Replenishment Licences are issued for the purpose of replenishment of items of import against exports already made. The export houses have been given the facility of importing OGL items against replenishment licences without debit to the value of the licences. As far as advance licences and imprest licences are concerned, the same were specifically issued for the import of certain items meant for export. In the policy for the period AM 83 with regard to advance/imprest licences for export houses, it was provided that: (a) The facility for import of OGL items in respect of REP Licences would also be allowed to export houses against advance/imprest licences to the extent to which they were rendered ineligible to obtain REP licences. (b) In such cases, the value up to which the OGL imports would be allowed was not to exceed the value to which export houses would have been eligible to the replenishment licences, had he not obtained advance/imprest licence in question. (c) The facility would be allowed to export house after it discharges the export obligation imposed on the advance/imprest licence. It was expressly provided that if by the time the export house became eligible to this facility, the advance/imprest licence had expired or if the original validity left unused by that time is less than six months, the licensing authority would revalidate the licence simultaneously so as to give the licence-holder a time of six months for the purpose of importing OGL items under this facility. ( 3. ) RELYING on the representations contained in the policy, and in particular, upon paragraph 185 (4) of the Policy for the period April to March 1983, the petitioners applied for an imprest licence and the same was granted for the CIF value of Rs. 2,44,97,242 against an FOB value of export of Rs. 3,76,88,066 for the import of uncut and unset diamonds. 2,44,97,242 against an FOB value of export of Rs. 3,76,88,066 for the import of uncut and unset diamonds. In accordance with this licence, the petitioners imported uncut and unset diamonds and also fulfilled their export obligation. The petitioners were given the redemption certificate by the Controller of Imports and Exports on March 9, 1984, Thereafter, in accordance with the policy, the petitioners applied for revalidation of the licence and also for the endorsement for the import of OGL items. The application was filed on June 8, 1984 and the respondents turned it down by communication dated June 20, 1984. The import licence was returned without the necessary endorsements and the reasons for the rejection of the application were: (1) Imprest Licence is not valid (2) No balance value available in the Customs copy of the licence, and (3) There is no provision to endorse the imprest licence for OGL items in AM 85 policy Book. Feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 4. ) SHRI Vahanvati, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that each of the reasons furnished by the respondents are entirely erroneous and unsustainable. The respondents have filed the return sworn by Shri K. J. Chellani, Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, in answer to the petition. As regards ground No. 1 that the Imprest Licence is not valid, the return does not recite any reason in support of the claim. The licence has been validly issued and the petitioners have fulfilled the export obligation with regard to the licence and the respondents have issued the redemption certificate and, therefore, it is obvious that the first reason furnished by the respondents is totally unsustainable. The second reason that no balance value available in the Customs copy of the licence is also untenable. After the utilisation of the licence for the import of uncut and unset diamonds, there can possibly be no balance value available in the Customs copy of the licence. The third ground is that there is no provision for the OGL ENDORSEMENT in the AM 85 Policy Book. Shri Vahanvati submitted that the licence was issued during the licensing period April-March 1983 and it is expressly provided that the licence will be governed by the conditions imposed at the time of issue thereof. The third ground is that there is no provision for the OGL ENDORSEMENT in the AM 85 Policy Book. Shri Vahanvati submitted that the licence was issued during the licensing period April-March 1983 and it is expressly provided that the licence will be governed by the conditions imposed at the time of issue thereof. The learned Counsel urged that it is entirely irrelevant to take into consideration the subsequent policy and deprive the petitioners of the facility granted in Paragraph 185 of the earlier policy. The submission of the learned Counsel is correct and deserves acceptance. The licences were granted to the petitioners on January 1983 and the new policy was to come into operation within a period of three months. The time required for the import of the goods and the fulfilment of the export obligation would obviously require the period in excess of three months and, therefore, the new policy is bound to be introduced before the obligations are carried out by the petitioners. In my judgment, the reference to the policy for the period AM 85 is totally extraneous and irrelevant for considering the claim of the petitioners. The action of the respondents in these circumstances cannot be sustained. ( 5. ) SHRI Bulchandani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, tried to furnish one more reason to sustain the action of the respondents. It was urged that the Conditions Slip attached to Imprest Licence demands that the licensee will export, within a period of six months from the date of clearance from Customs beginning with the first consignment against this Imprest Licence and the petitioners have not fulfilled this condition. I enquired from Shri Bulchandani as on what basis, the submission is advanced and the learned Counsel had no answer. In my judgment, the additional reason tried to be suggested by Shri Bulchandani is wholly misconceived. Such a contention is not tenable when the redemption certificate was issued by the respondents certifying that the obligation has been fulfilled by the petitioners. In my judgment, the action of the respondents is entirely unjustified and the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought. ( 6. ) ACCORDINGLY, the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (b) of the petition. The respondents shall also revalidate the Imprest Licence. The respondents shall pay the costs of the petition.