2015 (1) TMI 1172 - HC - Customs

Surrender of CHA license - Deprivation from right of livelihood - Held that - petitioner is not a CHA licencee, yet the action of the respondent directing him to surrender the G Card has factually deprived him for his livelihood for the past four months. As to whether the respondents ultimately propose to suspend the CHA licence or give a show cause notice is not known. In other words, the petitioner is at mercy of the respondents for an indefinite period. - respondents may grant a hearing to the petitioner and thereafter, pass a speaking order as in terms of the Regulation 19(2). A direction is accordingly issued to the concerned Commissioner to afford a hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Commissioner under Regulation 19 on 30-5-2014 at 11 00 AM. After granting him the hearing, the said Commissioner shall pass an order either revoking or confirming the direction to surrender the G Card, within 15 days, in terms of the said regulation 19(2). - Decided in favour of Appellants.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner aggrieved by orders to surrender 'G' Card.
2. Contention regarding deprivation of livelihood without hearing.
3. Interpretation of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013.
4. Comparison with previous court order in a similar case.
5. Lack of provision for hearing or show cause notice.
6. Application of CHA regulations in the case.
7. Directive for the concerned Commissioner to grant a hearing.
8. Timely issuance of order post hearing.

Analysis:

The petitioner, a 'G' Card holder, challenged orders directing him to surrender the card, alleging deprivation of livelihood without a fair hearing. Citing Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, the petitioner argued that surrendering the card without a substantial order violates his right to livelihood. The respondent contended that no provision mandates a hearing before suspension, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner.

Referring to a previous court order, the petitioner sought a similar pre-condition for suspension. Despite not being a CHA licensee, regulations required immediate action in certain cases, with a provision for a hearing within 15 days of suspension. The court noted the petitioner's prolonged deprivation of livelihood and uncertainty regarding suspension or show cause notice issuance, putting him at the respondent's mercy indefinitely.

Consequently, the court directed the concerned Commissioner to grant the petitioner a hearing under Regulation 19, scheduling it for a specific date. Following the hearing, the Commissioner must issue a timely order either revoking or confirming the directive to surrender the 'G' Card, aligning with Regulation 19(2). Ultimately, the writ petition was allowed, emphasizing the importance of due process and timely decision-making in such matters.