Plant quarantine relaxation under Clause 14 requires factual verification before rejection and referral for repeated requests.

Clause 14 of the Plant Quarantine Order permits relaxation of import conditions in public interest, and a local plant quarantine officer may grant only a one-time exception. If relaxation is sought again, the matter must be referred to the Joint Secretary (Plant Protection), so the authority must first verify whether any prior relaxation was actually granted before rejecting the request. An order refusing relaxation on an unverified assumption of earlier benefit shows non-application of mind and cannot stand if the statutory referral route for second or subsequent requests is ignored. Fresh consideration is therefore required under the correct relaxation framework.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether relaxation from producing a phytosanitary certificate could be considered under Clause 14 of the Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 2003. (ii) Whether the order rejecting the request could stand when the authority had not examined whether the request was a first-time relaxation or a second/subsequent relaxation requiring reference to the Joint Secretary.

Issue (i): Whether relaxation from producing a phytosanitary certificate could be considered under Clause 14 of the Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 2003.

Analysis: Clause 14 permits relaxation of import conditions in public interest. The power is delegated to the officer in charge of the Plant Quarantine Station for a one-time exception in favour of a single party. For second or subsequent violations, the matter is required to be forwarded to the Joint Secretary (Plant Protection), Department of Agriculture and Cooperation. The authority therefore had to examine the factual position before deciding the request for relaxation.

Conclusion: The request for relaxation was capable of consideration under Clause 14, subject to whether it was a first-time relaxation or a subsequent one.

Issue (ii): Whether the order rejecting the request could stand when the authority had not examined whether the request was a first-time relaxation or a second/subsequent relaxation requiring reference to the Joint Secretary.

Analysis: The rejection was based on an assumption that the importer had already availed the maximum permissible relaxation. The writ petition asserted that no earlier relaxation had been sought. The authority had not undertaken the necessary factual verification, and even on the assumption of a prior relaxation, the matter ought to have been referred to the competent higher authority for second or subsequent relaxation. The impugned order therefore suffered from non-application of mind to the relevant statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The rejection order could not be sustained and was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The matter required fresh consideration by the plant quarantine authority, with liberty to grant relaxation if it was a first-time request, or to forward the matter to the competent higher authority if it was a second or subsequent request.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute delegates a one-time relaxation power to a local authority but requires repeated relaxation requests to be placed before a higher competent authority, the local authority must first verify the factual basis of prior relaxation before rejecting the request on that ground.

---