JUDGMENT - DEVADHAR J.P., J.:—The petitioners had applied for a duplicate Exchange Control copy of the REP licence issued to them as the original was lost either in their office or in their bankers office. The Customs Authorities rejected the said application on the ground that there is no such application on the ground that there is no such provision for issuance of duplicate copy of the freely transferable REP licence. Challenging the said orders passed by the Customs Authorities the present petition is filed. 2. The petitioner No. 1 Co. carries on business as Merchant Exporters and are engaged in the export of engineering goods. During the period from July, 1999 to September, 1999 the petitioner No. 1 had exported goods to the tune of Rs. 1,35,61,047/-. In lieu of the above exports the petitioner No. 1 was issued a transferable REP licence bearing No. P/K-3458300 dated 5-3-1991 entitling the petitioners to import goods of CIF value of Rs. 27,12,200/-. The said licence was valid upto 4-9-1992. The said licence as per the policy was issued in two counter-parts, one exchange control counter-part and another customs counter-part. The customs copy was required to be presented along with the Bill of entry for obtaining clearance of the imported goods and the exchange control copy was to be presented to the bank for effecting remittances in respect of the goods to be imported. In cases where no remittances of foreign exchange is involved, no exchange control copy of the licence was issued. In the present case, since the import was against foreign remittances, the licence was issued in two counter-parts. 3. Under the said licence the first petitioner imported goods worth Rs. 37, 205/- in the year 1991 and the balance quantity of goods importable under the said licence was to the extent of Rs. 26,74,995/-. It is the case of the petitioners that some time in April, 1992, they realised that the exchange control of the licence has been lost either in the office of their bankers or in their own office. 4. As per Paras 76 to 79 of the Handbook of Procedure 1990-93 duplicate licence could not be issued in respect of freely transferable REP licence, except where the original licence have been lost or misplaced in the Import and Export Trade Control Organisation. 4. As per Paras 76 to 79 of the Handbook of Procedure 1990-93 duplicate licence could not be issued in respect of freely transferable REP licence, except where the original licence have been lost or misplaced in the Import and Export Trade Control Organisation. However, as per para 21 of the Handbook of procedure 1992-97 which came in to force with effect from 1-5-1992, a duplicate copy could be issued in respect of all import licences on fulfilment of certain conditions. Para 21 of the Handbook of Procedure 1992-97 read as follows: "Where a licence is lost or misplaced, an application for grant of a duplicate copy thereof may be considered only if the Licensing Authority concerned is satisfied about the bona fides of the request. The application may be made to the Licensing Authority in the form given in Appended VI. On being satisfied about the merits of the application, the Licensing Authority will issue a duplicate copy of the licence, after issuing an order for cancellation of the original licence and informing the Customs Authority where the original license was registered." 5. As per para 21 of the Handbook of Procedure 92-97, the petitioners on 15th June, 1992 made an application to the Licensing Authorities requesting them to issue a duplicate exchange control copy of the REP licence, as the original was lost. Along with the said application, several documents were annexed. However, by a letter dated 24th June, 1992 the respondents informed the petitioners that the application was incomplete as TR challan for Rs. 100/- was not forwarded along with the said application. Accordingly, the petitioners paid the amount of Rs. 100/- on 10-7-1992 and forwarded the TR challan vide their letter dated 16th July, 1992. By a letter dated 23rd July, 1992 the Licensing Authorities rejected the application on the ground that there is no provisions to issue a duplicate exchange control copy of licence as per the amended Handbook of Procedure. Representations made by the petitioners from time to time to the respondents were rejected by letters dated 22-12-1992, 21-4-1993 and 16-11-1993 by reiterating that there is not provision for issuance of duplicate copy of the licence. Challenging the aforesaid orders, the present petition is filed. 6. Mr. Representations made by the petitioners from time to time to the respondents were rejected by letters dated 22-12-1992, 21-4-1993 and 16-11-1993 by reiterating that there is not provision for issuance of duplicate copy of the licence. Challenging the aforesaid orders, the present petition is filed. 6. Mr. Shyam Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that as per the unamended para 21 of the Handbook of Procedure 1992-97, the Licensing Authorities were empowered to issue a duplicate licence even in respect of freely transferable licences. Therefore, on making an application on 15-6-1992 for duplicate exchange control copy of the licence under Para 21, vested right accrued to the petitioners to obtain duplicate copy of the licence and that vested right is not affected by any subsequent amendment to para 21 of the Handbook of Procedure. He further submitted that in the petitioners case, the bona fides was established beyond doubt, inasmuch as, the petitioners were only requesting for a duplicate exchange control copy of the licence as the original customs counter-part of the licence was available with the petitioners to establish that the licence has not been transferred or utilised. Accordingly, it was submitted that in spite of being satisfied that there is no misuse of the licence, the Licensing Authorities were not justified in rejecting the application of the petitioners. 7. Mr. Mehta further submitted that the petitioners right to obtain duplicate exchange control copy of the licence under the Handbook of Procedure prevailing on 15-6-1992 was a substantive right and not a procedural right. Therefore, unless otherwise specified, any amendment relating to substantive rights will be prospective in nature and will not have the effect of nullifying the vested right accrued to the parties prior to such amendment. In the present case, on making the application on 15-6-1992, vested right accrued to the petitioners to obtain duplicate exchange control copy of the licence and that right is not defeated by the subsequent amendment in the Handbook of Procedure 1992-97 which came into force with effect from 30-6-92. 8. Mr. Mehta further submitted that the Licensing Authorities erred in law in treating the application of the petitioners for a duplicate exchange control copy of the REP licence as an application for a duplicate licence. 8. Mr. Mehta further submitted that the Licensing Authorities erred in law in treating the application of the petitioners for a duplicate exchange control copy of the REP licence as an application for a duplicate licence. He submitted that even after the amendment of para 21 of the Handbook of Procedure on 30-6-1992 the prohibition to issue a duplicate copy of the licence was only in those cases where both the counter-parts i.e. exchange control counter-part as well as the customs counter-part of the licence was lost. In the present case, the petitioner had lost only exchange control counter-part and the custom counter-part evidencing non utilisation of the licence was available with the petitioner and, therefore, the Licencing authorities were not justified in rejecting the application of the petitioners. 9. Mr. Mehta further submitted that under REP Circular No. 24/92 dated 30th June, 1992 issuance of duplicate REP licence was permitted where the original licence was lost either in the post office or during the postal transit or in the customs department. However, the said REP Circular No. 24/92 did not provide for issuance of duplicate copy where the licence was lost in the bank or in the licence holders office. This differential treatment, it was submitted, is arbitrary and discriminatory. He submitted that the petitioners had lost the original exchange control counter-part of the licence in the office of their bankers or in their office and there was sufficient evidence to show on the basis of the customs counter-part of the licence to establish that the said licence has not been utilised or transferred. Under the circumstances, it was submitted that the case of the petitioners being similar to the cases set out in REP Circular No. 24/92 dated 30-6-92 the respondents be directed to forthwith issue a duplicate exchange control copy of the REP licence so that on surrender of that licence the petitioners can obtain premium to the extent to unutilised portion of licence as permissible under REP Circular 11/93 dated 5-5-1993. 10. Mr. Chaudhari, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the application made by the petitioner on 15th June, 1992 was incomplete, inasmuch as, the requisite TR challan evidencing payment of Rs. 100/- prescribed under the Handbook of procedure was not enclosed along with the application. 10. Mr. Chaudhari, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the application made by the petitioner on 15th June, 1992 was incomplete, inasmuch as, the requisite TR challan evidencing payment of Rs. 100/- prescribed under the Handbook of procedure was not enclosed along with the application. By a letter dated 24th June, 1992, the Licencing Authorities had called upon the petitioners to submit TR challan. Accordingly, the petitioners had paid the amount of Rs. 100/- on 10th July, 1992 and forwarded the TR Challan alongwith their letter dated 16th July, 1992. Mr. Chaudhari submitted that the application dated 15th June, 1992 being incomplete, the Licensing authorities could not issue a duplicate copy of the licence to the petitioners, till the said defect was cured. 11. Mr. Chaudhari further submitted that by the time the petitioners paid the requisite amount and furnished TR Challan, the Handbook of procedure was amended vide Public Notice No. 23(PN)/92-97 dated 30th June, 1992. By the said public notice, Para 21 of the Handbook of Procedure 1992-97 was amended to add the following words at the end of the paragraph: "However, no duplicate copy shall be issued in the case of freely transferable import licences." 12. Mr. Chaudhari accordingly submitted that in view of the amendment to para 21 of the Handbook of procedure, the Licensing authorities were justified in refusing to allow the claim of the petitioners. Mr. Chaudhari submitted that the exchange control copy of the licence being freely transferable, the same could be utilised for making remittances to the foreign country without actually there being any import against the said licence. In these circumstances, Mr. Chaudhary submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to any reliefs in the present petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the application made on 15-6-1992 seeking duplicate exchange control copy of the REP licence was incomplete. On the defect in the application pointed out by the Licensing Authorities, the petitioners removed the defect by depositing amount of Rs. 100/- on 10th July, 1992 and furnished challan in respect thereof vide their letter dated 16th July, 1992. On the defect in the application pointed out by the Licensing Authorities, the petitioners removed the defect by depositing amount of Rs. 100/- on 10th July, 1992 and furnished challan in respect thereof vide their letter dated 16th July, 1992. In the meantime, Para 21 of the Handbook of procedure permitting issuance of duplicate copy of the licence was amended by public notice bearing No. 23/PN/92-97 dated 30th June, 1992. The effect of the said amendment was that on duplicate copy of the licence could be issued after 30-6-92 in case of freely transferable import licences. It is not in dispute that the REP license issued to the petitioners was a freely transferable licence. Therefore, the application dated 15th June, 1992 being incomplete and invalid till 30-6-92, no duplicate licence could be issued till then and after 30-6-92 in view of the amendment to Para 21 of the Handbook of Procedure 1992-97 no duplicate copy could be issued in respect of the freely transferable REP licence issued to the petitioners. 14. The contention that on making application on 15th June, 1992, substantive right to receive a duplicate exchange control copy of the REP licence accrued to the petitioners is also without any merit. Right to obtain REP licence, subject to the fulfilment of the conditions set out under the prevailing import policy is a substantive right. Whereas, right to obtain a duplicate licence in case the original licence is lost is a procedural right contained in the Handbook of Procedure. Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates the right, in contrast to the law which provides the method of enforcing the rights. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioners that they had a substantive right to receive duplicate copy of the licence is without any merit. It is well established in law that any amendment in the procedural law has retrospective effect and all pending matters have to be dealt with as per the amended procedural law. In the present case, in view of the amendment to Para 21 of the Handbook of Procedure 92-97 with effect from 30-6-92, no duplicate licence could be issued after 30-6-92 in case of a freely transferable licences even though the application in respect thereof was made prior to 30-6-1992. In the present case, in view of the amendment to Para 21 of the Handbook of Procedure 92-97 with effect from 30-6-92, no duplicate licence could be issued after 30-6-92 in case of a freely transferable licences even though the application in respect thereof was made prior to 30-6-1992. In the present case, admittedly the licence in question was a freely transferable licence and, therefore, the licensing authorities were justified in rejecting the application of the petitioners. 15. The fact that the Government by REP Circular No. 24/92 dated 30-6-92 has carved out certain exceptions in the matter of issuance of duplicate copy of the freely transferable licence does not in any way support the case of the petitioners. The said circular was issued in the light of the representations received from the Trade and Industry. The said circular provided that where the licenses are lost either in the post office or during postal transit or in the customs department then duplicate copy of the licence could be issued. In such cases, licences having not reached the authorised person and misuse of that licence being minimal, in the interest of trade and industry, the above circular is issued. Therefore, the cases where the licences are lost before reaching the licence holder cannot be said to be on par with the cases where the licences are lost after reaching the licence holder. The two cases fall in separate, clear and distinct category. Therefore, the circular issued in public interest permitting issuance of a duplicate copy, where the licences are lost in the post office or postal transit or in the customs department stand on a different footing altogether and no fault can be found with such a circular. In these circumstances, we see no merit in the contention of the petitioners that the REP Circular No. 24/92 dated 30th June, 1992 is discriminatory or arbitrary and that the case of the petitioners should be considered in the light of the said circular. 16. The contention of the petitioners that the prohibition contained in Para 21 of the Handbook of Procedure applies only when both counter-parts of the license are lost is also without any merit. There is nothing in Para 21 of the Handbook of Procedure to suggest that duplicate copy can be issued, where, only the exchange control copy is lost or where only customs copy is lost. There is nothing in Para 21 of the Handbook of Procedure to suggest that duplicate copy can be issued, where, only the exchange control copy is lost or where only customs copy is lost. Irrespective of one or the other counter-part of the licence is lost, whether be it exchange control copy or the customs copy, as per the amended Handbook of Procedure, no duplicate licence can be issued after 30-6-1992. Therefore, the fact that the petitioners have lost the exchange control copy and the customs copy of the licence was still available with them, will not entitle the petitioners to obtain duplicate exchange control copy of the REP licence. 17. Once it is held that the petitioners are not entitled to a duplicate exchange control copy of the licence, the question of obtaining premium by surrendering that licence as per Circular No. 11/93 dated 5-5-1993 does not arise at all. 18. For all the aforesaid reasons, we see no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. -----