Fresh adjudication must follow operative baggage rules, not superseded rules; the legal basis was corrected.

A direction for fresh adjudication could not rest on the Baggage Rules, 1994 after those rules had been repealed and replaced by the Baggage Rules, 1998. The proper legal basis for reconsideration had to be the operative rules in force, so the reference in the impugned order was corrected from the 1994 Rules to the 1998 Rules. The matter was then to be decided afresh under the substituted rules.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate tribunal could direct reconsideration of the matter by relying on the Baggage Rules, 1994 after those rules had been superseded by the Baggage Rules, 1998.

Analysis: The impugned direction proceeded on the basis of the Baggage Rules, 1994, including Rule 11, although those rules had already been repealed and replaced by the Baggage Rules, 1998. A direction to decide the matter afresh could not validly rest on a superseded set of rules. The appropriate course was to correct the reference in the impugned order so that the adjudication would proceed under the operative rules.

Conclusion: The reference to the Baggage Rules, 1994 was substituted with the Baggage Rules, 1998, and the matter was to be decided afresh on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded to the extent of securing correction of the legal basis on which the matter was to be reconsidered, and the adjudicating authority was required to proceed under the substituted rules.

Ratio Decidendi: A decision directing fresh adjudication cannot be sustained if it is founded on rules that have been superseded; the operative legal regime alone must govern the reconsideration.

---