Public-interest relaxation notifications upheld where statutory consultation was not mandatory and sufficient material supported the policy choice.

Statutory relaxation notifications under Section 16A(1) of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 were upheld because the Court found sufficient material supporting the public-interest policy choice and applied limited judicial review, with parliamentary laying providing additional oversight. The challenge based on alleged absence of material for suspension or relaxation failed. The Court also held that Section 16A did not make consultation with the Export Inspection Council a condition precedent, and refused to imply a requirement not expressed in the statute, noting in any event that consultation had occurred. The petitions were therefore rejected and the notifications sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notifications issued under Section 16A(1) of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 were invalid for want of material showing that suspension or relaxation of the statutory regime was necessary or expedient in the public interest. (ii) Whether the notifications were invalid because they were issued without consulting the Export Inspection Council.

Issue (i): Whether the notifications issued under Section 16A(1) of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 were invalid for want of material showing that suspension or relaxation of the statutory regime was necessary or expedient in the public interest.

Analysis: The power under Section 16A(1) was exercised in the context of a policy decision concerning export control and pre-shipment inspection. The Court treated the exercise of statutory power by the Central Government as carrying a presumption of bona fide action, especially when the notifications were subject to parliamentary laying and possible modification or revocation under Section 16A(3). The record disclosed material indicating that recognised export houses had established credentials abroad, that a substantial portion of exports had proceeded without compulsory pre-shipment inspection, and that export performance supported the policy choice. On that basis, the Court found that sufficient material existed and that the scope of interference was limited.

Conclusion: The challenge failed on this ground, and the notifications were not held invalid for want of material or public interest justification.

Issue (ii): Whether the notifications were invalid because they were issued without consulting the Export Inspection Council.

Analysis: The Court read the statutory scheme as distinguishing between the initial notification of commodities under Section 6 and the later suspension or relaxation power under Section 16A. It held that Section 16A did not require consultation with the Council as a condition precedent. The return also stated that consultation had in fact taken place. The Court refused to read into the statute a restriction not expressed by the legislature.

Conclusion: The notifications were valid and were not struck down on the ground of absence of consultation.

Final Conclusion: The petitions challenging the notifications were rejected in entirety, and the impugned notifications were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute confers a public-interest relaxation power subject to parliamentary oversight, the exercise of that power will ordinarily be upheld on limited judicial review unless mala fides or legal infirmity is shown, and a consultation requirement cannot be implied beyond the express language of the statute.

---