Re-testing of samples is a discretionary power of the authority and cannot be claimed as a right.

The petitioner sought to export shawls which were intercepted by Customs authorities for sampling.

A report from the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) dated August 19, 2021, concluded the shawls contained hair from the Tibetan Antelope (Panthelops hodgsonii), an endangered species.

At the petitioner's request, a second test was conducted by the Zoological Survey of India (ZSI); however, the report dated September 8, 2022, remained inconclusive.

On January 25, 2024, the respondents issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) based on the WII report.

The petitioner subsequently requested a third test (second re-test) on April 15, 2025, which was declined by the respondents on February 24, 2026.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash the SCN and the order declining the third test, citing principles of natural justice and relevant department circulars.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a third laboratory test (second re-test) as a matter of right under Public Notice No. 97/2017.

2. Whether the court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the Show Cause Notice and the order declining the re-test at this stage.

The court primarily applied Clause (f) of the Public Notice/Notification No. 97/2017 dated July 28, 2017, issued by the Customs authorities.

This clause establishes that the competent authority may order a second re-test only if it is "unable to decide whether to rely upon the first or the re-test results," emphasizing that this option is not to be resorted to in every case of variation.

The court also considered the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the context of pending adjudicatory proceedings.

The court reasoned that a third test cannot be demanded as an absolute right at the mere instance of the petitioner.

It observed that the existing circular vests the discretion to order a "second re-test" (third test) solely with the adjudicating authority, provided that the authority is satisfied of such a necessity during the evaluation of the existing reports.

The court noted that since the second test report was issued in 2022 and the request for a third test was only made in 2025, the petitioner’s actions appeared intended to delay the proceedings.

The court further clarified that test reports are evidence to be appreciated by the adjudicating authority, and it is premature for the court to intervene before the authority has had the opportunity to decide which report to rely upon.

The court held that the petitioner cannot bypass the adjudicatory process to compel a third test when the law leaves such a decision to the satisfaction of the competent authority.

However, the court clarified that this dismissal does not preclude the adjudicating authority from independently deciding to order a third test if the facts and circumstances warrant it under the procedure laid down in the circular dated July 28, 2017.