1960 (2) TMI 4 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of renewal of licence for Custom House Broker.
2. Fundamental right to carry on business as Custom House Broker without a licence.
3. Jurisdiction and delay in filing petition under Article 226.
4. Relief to be granted to the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The judgment addresses the issue of the validity of the renewal of a licence for a Custom House Broker. The petitioner had been renewing the licence until the Assistant Collector of Customs declined to renew it after a certain date. The petitioner contended that the licence issued under section 202 before its amendment was valid for all time and did not require renewal. However, the court ruled that the authority had the right to determine the period of the licence, and rules had been made limiting the duration of such licences. The court held that the petitioner's contention was overruled, and the renewal of the licence could be subject to limitations set by the authority.

2. The judgment also delves into the petitioner's fundamental right to carry on business as a Custom House Broker without a licence. The petitioner argued that he had obtained an irrevocable licence under Section 202 before its amendment, entitling him to carry on business without a licence. The court examined the provisions of Section 202(1) and the rules regarding Custom House agents. It concluded that until the prohibition against carrying on business without a licence came into force, the petitioner was entitled to carry on his business without a licence, as it was part of his fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

3. The judgment discusses the jurisdiction and delay in filing the petition under Article 226. The petitioner had challenged the refusal to renew the licence through various stages of appeal and revision. The respondents argued that the time taken for the revision petition to the Central Government should be weighed against the petitioner for delay in filing the current petition. The court considered previous judgments and observed that in cases involving the violation of fundamental rights, the delay in filing a petition under Article 226 must be viewed differently. It noted that the discretion to overlook delay should be exercised liberally in cases of fundamental rights infringement.

4. Lastly, the judgment addresses the relief to be granted to the petitioner. The court found that there was no provision to compel the issuance of a licence to the petitioner. However, recognizing the petitioner's fundamental right to carry on business as a Custom House Broker, the court directed the authorities to allow the petitioner to continue his business until the necessary notification was made under section 202(1) of the Act. The relief sought in the petition was partially granted in favor of the petitioner.