Writ court will not decide disputed facts on plant quarantine regulations; competent authority must consider representation on merits.

The writ court should not decide disputed questions of fact regarding the application of Regulations 9(1) and 9(3) of the Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 2003 when the controversy requires examination of documents and materials unsuitable for writ adjudication. The proper course is for the competent authority to consider the representation, along with supporting documents, on merits and in accordance with law within the time fixed by the court. The court therefore declined to undertake factual adjudication itself and directed administrative consideration of the matter.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ court should enter into disputed questions of fact concerning the application of Regulations 9(1) and 9(3) of the Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 2003 and decide the representation itself, or direct the competent authority to consider the representation on merits.

Analysis: The dispute turned on factual controversies and the effect of the relevant regulations, which required examination of documents and materials not suitable for adjudication in writ proceedings. The proper course was for the competent authority to consider the petitioner's representation along with supporting documents and decide the matter in accordance with law within a fixed time.

Conclusion: The representation was required to be considered by the competent authority on merits and in accordance with law, and the writ court declined to undertake factual adjudication in the proceedings.

---