D. Nataraja Mudallar vs State Transport Authority, Madras on 6 September, 1978
It may be true that grant of the essentiality certificate was itself
dependent upon the question as to whether the Appellant was possessed
of a valid oil exploration licence or not. It is, however, equally true that
right to renewal of a licence is a valuable right. [See D. Nataraja
Mudaliar v. The State Transport Authority, Madras, AIR 1979 SC 114]
The Appellant applied for grant of renewal of the said licence before its
expiry. The said renewal has been granted with a retrospective effect. In
law, thus, the Appellant had been holding a valid licence continuously.
The factual events as noticed hereinbefore clearly show that the
Appellant's application for grant of essentiality certificate by the
Directorate General of Hydrocarbons was not entertained in absence of
renewal of the licence. The application was returned only for that
purpose. The Appellant filed its application for grant of essentiality
certificate within two days from the date of grant of the licence with
retrospective effect and then thereafter sent several reminders. The
conduct of the Appellant must, therefore, be judged from the factual
matrix obtaining therein. We, therefore, are unable to agree with the
opinion of the learned Commissioner that the Appellant made any
misrepresentation before this Court or that the Directorate General of
Hydrocarbons had shown any favour to it. Once it is held that the
Ministry of Petroleum had renewed the licence and the Directorate
General of Hydrocarbons had issued the essentiality certificate, the
conditions precedent for obtaining exemption in terms of the exemption
notification stood fully satisfied.