2001 (4) TMI 105 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved: Whether Regulation 25(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations 1984 bars recognition of more than one Association in the Customs Station.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Regulation 25(2):
The primary issue is whether Regulation 25(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR), 1984, restricts the recognition of more than one Customs House Agents' Association at a Customs Station. The court concluded that there is no such restriction. The language of Regulation 25(2) does not indicate that there shall be only one Association for Custom House Agents in a Customs Station. The regulation mandates that a Custom House Agent must enroll as a member of a recognized Association, but it does not limit the number of Associations that can be recognized.

2. Role of the Commissioner of Customs:
The Commissioner of Customs has the authority to recognize one or more Customs House Agents' Associations in a Customs Station. The court emphasized that the Commissioner does not have the power to restrict the number of such Associations. The recognition of an Association merely enables it to be consulted by the Commissioner when fixing rates for services rendered by Custom House Agents, and it has no other role under the Customs Act or CHALR, 1984.

3. Fundamental Right to Form Associations:
The right to form an Association is guaranteed by the Constitution. The court noted that there are no statutory provisions, regulations, notifications, or guidelines that bar the recognition of more than one Association. Any direction or compulsion by the Commissioner to restrict the number of Associations would interfere with the fundamental right to form an Association under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution.

4. Validity of the Petitioner's Association:
The petitioner's Association was formed validly, and the rejection of their application for recognition was based on the incorrect interpretation that only one Association could be recognized. The court found this reason unsustainable as there is no provision in Regulation 25(2) that bars the recognition of multiple Associations.

5. Appealability of the Order:
The court addressed the contention that the order rejecting the petitioner's application was appealable under the Customs Act. It concluded that the order was not appealable as it was not an adjudication of liability under the Act but rather a decision under the CHALR, 1984. The regulations themselves do not provide for an appeal against such an order, and thus, the petitioner had no alternative but to seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

6. Mandamus and Quashing of the Impugned Order:
Given that there was no other objection or deficiency pointed out in the petitioner's application, the court held that the petitioner was entitled to a writ of mandamus. The impugned order was quashed, and the court directed the first respondent to accord recognition to the petitioner-Association within eight weeks.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the first respondent to recognize the petitioner-Association under Regulation 25 of the CHALR, 1984. The rule nisi was made absolute, and the connected W.M.P. was dismissed.