Judgment :- Srikrishna, C. J. The appellant in this case challenges the order of the learned Single Judge dated 2nd December 1999 rendered in O. P. No. 21419 of 1997. 2. The respondent is an exporter who exports several articles including sandal wood oil. Under the policy of Export and Import as it stood at the material time, the respondent applied on 16-4-1996 for a licence to export sandal wood oil. Sandal wood oil was in the negative list of prohibited items in the import-export policy document till export thereof was permitted subject to certain conditions under the changed policy as declared in the public Notice No.75 dated 8-12-1995 as amended by Public Notice No.77/Exp (PN) 92-97 dated 1-1-1996 issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade. By this notification, previous public notice dated 31st March, 1993 appearing at Appendix XLIII-I of Handbook of Procedures, Vol.I, 1992-97(Revised Edition: May, 1995) was amended by the addition of serial No.43. Serial No.43 reads as under: " 43.Sandalwood Oil; Export allowed subject to: (i) Certificate of Origin from the Principal/Chief Conservative of Forests of the State concerned; (ii) No objection certificate from the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India; (iii) Any other condition, including a ceiling, that may be imposed by the Director General of Foreign Trade." The sum and substance of this amendment was that export of sandalwood oil become permissible subject to the restrictions imposed in this policy declaration. The Conditions (i) and (ii) need not detain us. Condition No. (iii) merely empowers the Director General of foreign Trade to impose any other condition including a ceiling on the export of Sandalwood oil. In exercise of this power, the Director General of Foreign Trade issued an export instruction notice dated17th July, 1996 (Ext.P26) in which another condition, inter alia, was imposed vide para4. That condition reads as under: "Only the Sandalwood Oil distilled from two classes of Sandalwood viz. Sandalwood root class and Ainchilta class procured directly from the State Forest Department shall be permitted for exports." 3. The respondent had purchased sandalwood oil from a party who had participated in an auction conducted by the Government. That party has applied to the Government to take steps to give a certificate to that effect. Sandalwood root class and Ainchilta class procured directly from the State Forest Department shall be permitted for exports." 3. The respondent had purchased sandalwood oil from a party who had participated in an auction conducted by the Government. That party has applied to the Government to take steps to give a certificate to that effect. Ext.P9 produced in O.P. No/ 21419 of 1997 issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (General), Government of Kerala shows that quantities mentioned in the certificate were purchased and cleared by the petitioner from the parties whose names were also specified and who had directly participated in the auction. This certificate, therefore, indicate the origin of the material beyond dispute. Though the petitioner had applied for export licence in April 1996, the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) did not promptly issue the licence. The petitioner, therefore, sent two reminders dated 1st August 1996 and 23rd January 1997 requesting the DGFT for expediting the issue of export the issue of export licence. By an order made on 10th November, 1997 the DGFT refused to issue export licence on the ground that the respondent had neither participated in the Government auctions, nor manufactured the oil, but had purchased the same from private distilleries. The respondent was informed that, as per the policy of the Government relating to sandalwood oil, only sandalwood oil distilled from two classes of sandalwood, i.e. Sandalwood root class and Ainchilta class procured directly from the State Forest Department was permitted for export. Since the respondent had not done so, the request was rejected. 4. Respondent filed this original petition to challenge this action of the Director General of Foreign Trade refusing permission to export sandalwood oil. The learned Single Judge by his judgment dated 2nd December, 1999 has taken the view that the certificates issued by the Principle Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of Kerala showed that the quantities mentioned in the certificates were purchased and cleared by the respondent from the parties, whose names were also mentioned, and who directly participated in the auction. Consequently, the origin of the material sought to be exported was not in dispute. Consequently, the origin of the material sought to be exported was not in dispute. The learned Single Judge noticed that there was no stand taken by the appellant that the sandalwood oil was smuggled product and in that as much as the certificate of the Chief Conservator of Forests clearly indicated that the material was procured from a party who had participated in government auction, the learned Single Judge held that the petitioner was entitled to get the benefit of the export licence. Hence, the learned Single Judge allowed the original petition, directed the DGFT to accept the same and pass fresh orders. It is this order which is under appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant drew our attention to the Export Instruction dated 17th July, 1996(Ext.P26) and contended that the condition in paragraph 4 of Ext. p26 was validly imposed by exercising the powers vested in the DGFT under clause (iii) of paragraph 3 of Ext. P4. He, therefore, contended that the condition that only sandal wood root class and Ainchilta class procured directly from the State forest Department shall be permitted for exports, should be read as part and parcel of Ext.P4 itself. Since, admittedly, the respondent's products did not qualify there under, the learned counsel justified the refusal of the export licence. 6. In our view, there is a basic flaw in the reasoning of the appellant. It is undoubtedly true that, by virtue of clause (iii) of Entry 43 added on 31st march, 1993, it was open to the Director General of Foreign Trade to impose any other appropriate condition for permitting export. But the question is, would such a condition have retrospective effect? It is not possible to say that the condition which was imposed by paragraph 4 of the Export Instruction dated 17.7.1996 (Ext.P4) was to operate from 1st January, 1996 or to read Ext,P4 as if it was effective from that date. A perusal of the order under challenge dated 10.11.1997 (Ext.P25) suggests that the DGFT has mis-applied his mind to the facts before him. He appears to have understood the applications of the respondent to have been made on 1st August 1996 and 23.1.1997 and applied the provisions of the Export Policy extant as on that date. 7. In our view, this mistake has vitiated the decision of the DGFT. He appears to have understood the applications of the respondent to have been made on 1st August 1996 and 23.1.1997 and applied the provisions of the Export Policy extant as on that date. 7. In our view, this mistake has vitiated the decision of the DGFT. As a matter of facts, the application for export was made of fact, the application for export was made on 16th April 1996 and the DGFT should have applied only those conditions which were in existence as on 16.4.1996. The facts on record show that as on 16.4.1996 there was no such condition as envisaged in paragraph 4 of Ext. P26as a condition for export. Thus, the only conditions which were required to be fulfilled by the respondent as on 16.4.1996 for getting an export licence were conditions (i) and (ii) of Entry 43 of the Handbook of procedures. This, admittedly, was complied with. The respondent was, therefore, entitled to an export licence in accordance with clauses (i) and (ii) of Entry43. 8. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, right in allowing the original petition and directing the DGFT to issue an export licence. The export licence had to be issued in accordance with Entry 43 of Appendix XLIII-I of Handbook of procedures, Vo1. I, 1992-97, without the added condition, which was added on 17.7.1996. The appeal must, therefore, fail and we hereby dismiss it. However, in the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.