2015 (9) TMI 1139 - HC - Customs

Delay in issuance of CHA License - Held that - Sufficient time has passed from the date the Petitioner s representative or partner has cleared the examination. He may have applied in the requisite form and initially as a Proprietor, but later on we do not find, even if the status is sought to be altered, that this much time and delay was justified. The very purpose of inserting a requirement of passing a written as well as oral examination is defeated, if, within a reasonable time from the candidate being successful thereat, a licence is not issued to him or he is not informed the reasons for not issuing the same. Eventually, these are matters of somebody s livelihood and we expect the authorities to be careful and sensitive. - mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India requires the authorities even in such matters to act fairly, reasonable and in a non-discriminatory manner. The Petitioner in the Writ Petition has also indicated as to how the authorities issue licences and after the examinations to several applicants expeditiously. - time of three months as sought by the Respondents cannot be granted - Petition diposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1) Declaration of impugned actions by Respondents in not issuing a Customs Broker Licence
2) Delay in issuing the licence despite fulfilling necessary conditions
3) Requirement of passing a written and oral examination for licence issuance
4) Allegations of unjustified delay and lack of communication from authorities
5) Mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India for fair and non-discriminatory actions
6) Timeframe for completion of requisite steps and measures for licence issuance

Analysis:

1) The Petitioner sought a declaration that the Respondents' actions of not issuing a Customs Broker Licence, despite fulfilling all conditions, were an abuse of power. The Petitioner, a Limited Liability Partnership Firm, highlighted the experience and qualifications of its Managing Partner in the customs brokerage industry. The firm's partner had passed the required examination, yet faced delays and lack of communication regarding the licence issuance.

2) The Respondents cited changes in the Petitioner's status from a proprietor to a partnership as a reason for inquiries and investigations causing delays. However, the court found the delay unjustified, emphasizing the importance of timely licence issuance post-examination success. The Petitioner's livelihood was at stake, urging authorities to act with urgency and sensitivity in such matters.

3) Emphasizing the constitutional mandate of fairness and non-discrimination under Article 14, the court noted the need for authorities to expedite licence issuance processes uniformly. The court highlighted the Petitioner's compliance with requirements and readiness to address any queries, stressing the authorities' duty to act fairly in such cases.

4) The court rejected the Respondents' request for a three-month extension to complete steps and measures for licence issuance. Instead, a strict deadline of six weeks was set for the completion of necessary procedures and communication of the decision to the Petitioner. The court warned against any further extensions beyond this timeframe.

5) In conclusion, the court disposed of the Writ Petition, issuing directions for prompt action by the authorities involved in the licence issuance process. The judgment underscored the importance of timely and fair decision-making in matters affecting individuals' livelihoods, in line with constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.