Export House Certificate refusal cannot rest on reasons outside the policy or later-added justifications.

An administrative refusal under the Import Policy April 1978-March 1979 was held unsustainable where the rejection rested on a ground not found in the policy or in the rejection letter. The application otherwise satisfied the scheme's requirements, and the authority could not later justify the refusal by adding a new reason in its return, including apprehended foreign exchange loss. Administrative action must stand or fall on the reasons actually recorded and those reasons must be traceable to the policy scheme. The petitioner was therefore entitled to the Export House Certificate.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refusal to grant an Export House Certificate under the Import Policy April 1978-March 1979 could be sustained on a ground not found in the policy or in the rejection letter.

Analysis: The application satisfied the scheme's requirements, and the rejection letter relied only on an alleged failure to diversify exports of other products during 1977-78, a condition not contained in the policy. The respondents could not justify the refusal by introducing a new reason in the return based on apprehended loss of foreign exchange, since administrative action must stand or fall on the reasons actually disclosed in the decision and those reasons must be traceable to the scheme itself. The Court found that the additional justification was belated and unsupported by the policy.

Conclusion: The refusal was unsustainable and the petitioner was entitled to the Export House Certificate.

Ratio Decidendi: An administrative authority exercising power under a policy scheme cannot refuse relief on a ground not contained in the scheme or in the impugned order, and cannot later supplement the decision with a new justification through an affidavit.

---