Discretionary re-testing of seized goods cannot be claimed as of right; writ interference was refused after inconclusive and adverse reports.

The power to order a further re-test of seized shawls under the applicable public notice was discretionary, not a right available to the petitioner. Because one report indicated Tibetan antelope hair and a later petitioner-requested report was inconclusive, the adjudicating authority had to evaluate the existing material and decide whether another test was necessary. The petitioner could not compel a third re-testing merely in the hope of a favourable result, and the refusal to direct further testing was not shown to warrant writ interference. The challenge was also treated as belated and aimed at delaying the proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to a third re-testing of the seized shawls and whether the refusal to grant such re-testing warranted interference under writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The dispute arose after one test report found the shawls to contain hair of Tibetan antelope and a later report sought by the petitioner remained inconclusive. The governing public notice of 28.07.2017 permitted the competent authority to consider re-test results and, where necessary, to order a further re-test, but that power was discretionary and not available to be invoked as a matter of right by the petitioner. The Court held that the adjudicating authority must first consider the available reports and decide whether a further test is required, and that the petitioner could not compel a third test merely because it hoped for a favourable result. The challenge was also viewed as belated and intended to delay the proceedings.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to a writ directing a third re-testing, and the refusal to order such re-testing did not call for interference.

---