Export obligation conditions barred writ relief where the petitioner failed to comply and had statutory redress available.

An export licence and declaration created a binding obligation to complete exports within the stipulated period, and judicial interference was unwarranted where that obligation was not shown to have been fulfilled. The Court stated that a writ court cannot dilute agreed export conditions or grant relief contrary to them, especially when the aggrieved party has recourse to the competent authorities for redress. In view of the petitioner's failure to establish a legally sustainable ground and the passage of time, no interference with the impugned order was justified; the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitioner was entitled to interference with the impugned order despite failure to fulfil the agreed export obligation and the availability of relief or redress before the competent authorities.

Analysis: The export licence and declaration imposed a binding obligation to complete exports within the stipulated period. The petitioner did not establish fulfilment of that obligation or any legally sustainable ground for judicial interference. The Court noted that, in the event of difficulty or grievance, the petitioner was required to approach the competent authorities, and that the writ court could not dilute the agreed export conditions or grant relief contrary to them. In the circumstances, and also in view of the passage of time, no interference was warranted.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to relief, and the challenge to the impugned order failed.

---