Rule-making power permits withdrawal of export-control proviso when original non-ban position is restored and unchallenged.

The omission of the proviso inserted in Rule 3(2) of the Raw Meat (Chilled/Frozen) (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules, 1992 was made under the rule-making power in Section 17 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963, and no material showed that it was done without application of mind or on a mere telephonic direction. After the earlier amendment had been stayed by another HC, the competent authority was entitled to withdraw the proviso if it was considered contrary to law, against public interest, or otherwise undesirable. As the original position, under which no export ban operated, was restored and that position was not challenged, writ interference was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the omission of the proviso inserted in Rule 3(2) of the Raw Meat (Chilled/Frozen) (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules, 1992 was invalid so as to warrant interference under writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The amendment and its subsequent omission were made in exercise of the rule-making power under Section 17 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963. No material was placed on record to support the allegation that the omission was effected without application of mind or merely on telephonic direction. Once the earlier amendment had been stayed by another High Court, it was open to the competent authority to withdraw the proviso if it was considered contrary to law, not in public interest, or otherwise undesirable. Since the original position, under which there was no such export ban, stood restored, and that position itself was not challenged, no ground for interference was made out.

Conclusion: The challenge to the omission of the proviso failed and the amendment was upheld.

---