Revalidation of advance licence denied where transferability was already endorsed and the public notice expressly excluded such cases.

A public notice on revalidation of advance licences issued under the 1992-97 policy was limited to licences whose export obligations had been completed but which could not be utilised because they had expired, and it expressly excluded licences on which transferability had already been endorsed. Because the petitioner's licence had already been endorsed transferable when the notice was issued, no enforceable right to revalidation arose. Writ relief was unavailable in the absence of a legal right, and administrative delay could not override the express exclusion in the notice. The petition for revalidation therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled, in writ jurisdiction, to revalidation of the advance licence and the benefit of the public notice dated 31st March, 2001 despite the fact that endorsement of transferability had already been made on the licence.

Analysis: The public notice governed revalidation of advance licences issued during the 1992-97 policy and expressly confined the benefit to cases where export obligations had been completed but the licences could not be utilised because of expiry. It also expressly excluded cases where endorsement of transferability had already been effected. On the date of the public notice, the petitioner's licence had already been endorsed for transferability, so the petitioner did not satisfy the condition for revalidation. In writ jurisdiction, relief can be granted only where a legal right exists and is infringed. Delay on the part of the authorities could not create a right where the notification itself excluded the petitioner's case.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the public notice or to revalidation of the licence once transferability had already been endorsed, and the writ petition failed.

---