9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1536 - HC - CustomsPetition against the order under Regulation 23 - Prohibition under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations 2013 - Impugned order is challenged on grounds of opportunity of hearing not given to Petitioner Respondent contends that order under Regulation 23 is in the nature of interlocutory order for and no show-cause notice is required to be issued Held That - Impugned order cannot be sustained and the same passed by the authority not vested any power to exercise jurisdiction under Regulation 20 - Liberty is granted to Respondent to pass fresh order, after giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner Decided in favour of the Petitioner.
Issues:
Challenge to order under Regulation 23 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations 2013 for lack of opportunity of hearing. Analysis: The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorari to quash an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs under Regulation 23 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations 2013. Regulation 23 empowers the Commissioner of Customs to prohibit a Customs Broker from working in specific sections of the Customs Station if certain obligations are not fulfilled. The challenge to the impugned order was solely based on the ground that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing before the prohibitory order was issued. During the proceedings, the respondent contended that the order under Regulation 23 was of an interlocutory nature and did not require a show-cause notice due to the lack of jurisdiction to pass a revocation or suspension order. However, upon examination, the court found that the impugned order could not be sustained. It was observed that the order of prohibition, being a final order, was passed by an authority without the power to exercise jurisdiction under Regulation 20. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice even in administrative orders that impact the rights of a party. It was held that the order under Regulation 23, being passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, was arbitrary and therefore not legally sustainable. Consequently, the Writ Petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and liberty was granted to the respondent to issue a fresh order in compliance with the law after affording the petitioner a fair hearing. The court closed the matter without imposing any costs.
|
