Irrelevant considerations in statutory discretion led to quashing of a refusal to permit an iodisation plant.

The Salt Commissioner's refusal to permit an iodisation plant was held unsustainable because the decision was based on irrelevant considerations, including the economic viability of the proposed unit, which was not a relevant criterion under Section 32 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and Rule 102 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The HC held that the statutory authority was required to apply independent judgment within the limits of the enabling provisions and to consider all material circumstances. Finding jurisdictional error and misdirection in law, the refusal was quashed and the application remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law, with an opportunity of hearing if necessary.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Salt Commissioner's refusal to permit the petitioner to set up an iodisation plant was without jurisdiction and based on irrelevant considerations, and whether the matter required fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 32 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and Rule 102 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required the Salt Commissioner to exercise his own independent judgment within the bounds of the Act and Rules. The impugned refusal was founded on the perceived economic viability of the proposed unit, although such viability was not a relevant criterion for exercise of power under the governing provisions. The order also failed to consider material circumstances and was found to rest on irrelevant considerations, amounting to a jurisdictional error and an error apparent on the face of the record.

Conclusion: The refusal could not be sustained, was quashed, and the Salt Commissioner was directed to reconsider the petitioner's application afresh in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing if necessary.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory authority must exercise power only on relevant considerations within the limits of the enabling statute and rules; an order based on irrelevant considerations or misdirection in law is liable to be quashed and remitted for fresh decision.

---