9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The validity and correctness of the impugned order passed by the respondent under Regulation 21(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. Summary: The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 26-9-1994, which was passed under Regulation 21(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. The petitioner's counsel argued that the order was unsustainable as it did not indicate that immediate action was necessary to suspend the license pending enquiry. The impugned order was challenged on the grounds of suspension under Regulation 21(2). The respondent, represented by the Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, justified the impugned order by pointing out grave irregularities committed by the petitioner. It was argued that immediate action was warranted due to the serious irregularities and contraventions committed by the petitioner. The court considered the submissions and noted that while the power of the Collector to take action under Regulation 21(1) was not questioned, the exercise of power under Regulation 21(2) required immediate action. The court found that the impugned order did not show that the Collector had considered whether immediate action was necessary, as required by the regulation. As a result, the court quashed the impugned order dated 26-9-1994, stating that the Collector needed to apply his mind to determine if immediate action was necessary before suspending the license. The court allowed the writ petitions and directed the respondent to exercise the power under Regulation 21(2) if desired to pass appropriate orders. Additionally, the contempt application made by the applicant was dismissed as not pressed by the counsel.
|
