JUDGMENT - DEVADHAR J.P., J.:-The short point required to be considered in this petition is whether the respondents are justified in issuing the advance licence with a clause that the "imports should be made before exports", so as to render the prior exports already made by the petitioners as per the policy illegal? 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner company is inter alia engaged in the business of exporting cotton yarn under Duty Exemption Scheme (Advance Licensing). The petitioners had applied for advance licence on 8th October, 1992. Since the relevant import policy 1992-97 provided for prior exports during the pendency of the application for grant of advance licence, the petitioners on or about 2nd November, 1992 exported to Ethiopia, a consignment of 3175 kgs. cotton yarn of FOB value Rs. 1,89,484/-. As per the policy, this prior export was liable to be considered in discharge of the export obligation under the licence to be issued by the licensing authorities. 3. On or about 2nd November, 1992 the petitioners received an Advance Licence bearing No. 0309256 dated 23rd October, 1992 for Rs. 2,42,697/- C.I.F. with a clause/condition that the imports under the said advance licence should be made before exports. As a result, the prior exports made by the petitioners as per the policy, could not be treated as exports made under the licence and in fact rendered the petitioners liable for penal action for committing breach of the condition of the licence. 4. Under these circumstances, the petitioners by their letter dated 5th November, 1992 called upon the respondents to delete the condition in the licence, because para 66 of the Policy 1992-97 permitted the exporter to discharge the export obligation against the advance licence from the date of submission of the application for licence. 5. By a letter dated 26th November, 1992 the Controller of Imports and Exports rejected the claim of the petitioners for deletion of the condition. The petitioner had applied for and received another Licence bearing No. 080491 dated 4th November, 1992, wherein similar condition of import before export was imposed by the respondents. Application made by the petitioners for deletion of the condition in that licence was also rejected by the respondents vide letter dated 26th November, 1992. Challenging these action of the respondents, the present petition is filed. 6. Application made by the petitioners for deletion of the condition in that licence was also rejected by the respondents vide letter dated 26th November, 1992. Challenging these action of the respondents, the present petition is filed. 6. While admitting this petition on 15th June, 1993, no interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioners, as a result whereof, the rights and obligations of both the parties could be enforced during the pendency of the petition. 7. Ms. Ghone, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that in view of para 66 of the Import Policy 1992-1997, the petitioners had made exports in anticipation of the grant of licence. She submitted that if the condition in the licence that the imports should be made before exports is not deleted, then the prior exports made by the petitioners as per the policy would be in violation of the licence condition and the petitioners would be subjected to penal action by the licensing authorities. It was submitted that it is absolutely essential in the interest of justice to delete the above condition in the licence which is contrary to the import policy. 8. Mr. R.V. Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the availability of raw cotton in the country was very tight at the time when the said licences were issued to the petitioners and, therefore, looking to the economic needs of the country, the conditions were imposed on the licence. He submitted that even after the grant of licences, the petitioners have not imported raw cotton and have not complied with the conditions of the licence, therefore, the petitioners having circumvented the conditions of the licence are not entitled any relief in the present petition. 9. We have considered the rival submissions. There can be no dispute that the grant of licence by the licensing authorities has to be in accordance with the Policy of the Government published from time to time. Para 66 of the AM 1992-1997 Policy permitted exports from the date of receipt of an application for licence by the licensing authorities and such exports could be accepted towards discharge of export obligation. It is true that such exports/supplies made in anticipation of a duty free licence is entirely at the risk and responsibility of the exporter. Para 66 of the AM 1992-1997 Policy permitted exports from the date of receipt of an application for licence by the licensing authorities and such exports could be accepted towards discharge of export obligation. It is true that such exports/supplies made in anticipation of a duty free licence is entirely at the risk and responsibility of the exporter. But where the prior exports of cotton yarn in terms of para 66 of AM 1992-97 Policy have been made in anticipation of grant of licence and where a party has fulfilled all the requisite conditions for grant of licence and in fact on satisfaction, the advance licence has been granted, the prior exports made by such a party cannot be made illegal by inserting a condition in the licence. So long as the Import-Export Policy permits prior exports, it will not be open to the licensing authorities to put a condition on the licence so as to render the prior exports illegal. If the licence for sufficient reasons is not granted, then the exporter runs the risk of making prior exports. In the present case, on consideration of the application, advance licence has been granted to the petitioners. In these circumstances, prior exports made by the petitioners during the pendency of the application for grant of licence cannot be faulted. Therefore, the condition put on the advance licence that 'import should be made before export' will have prospective effect and shall not affect the prior exports made by the petitioners. 10. In this petition, we are concerned with the clause in the advance licence in so far as it affects the prior exports. In the facts of the present case, looking to the domestic requirement of raw cotton, the licensing authorities might have been justified in imposing such a condition on the licence, but that condition will apply prospectively from the date of issuance of the licence and that condition cannot be applied retrospectively so as to affect the prior exports made in accordance with the policy of the Government. In other words, although, the condition of the licence that import should be made before export is justified, that condition shall not apply to the prior exports made by the petitioners in accordance with the policy. 11. In other words, although, the condition of the licence that import should be made before export is justified, that condition shall not apply to the prior exports made by the petitioners in accordance with the policy. 11. Accordingly, in the facts of this petition we hold that no fault can be found with the condition put on the licence that import of raw cotton should be made before export of cotton yarn, but, that condition will not apply to the exports already made from the date of the application for licence till the date of grant of licence and if there is any violation of the condition subsequent to the grant of the licence, then it would be open to the authorities to take appropriate action, as is permissible in law. 12. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. Order occordingly. -----