9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (10) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pire on 20th of May 1988. 3. Under Regulation 9 at least one of the partners of the petitioner-firm was required to qualify in the written and oral examinations to be conducted by the respondents under the said Regulations within a period of two years from the date of grant of a temporary licence before they could be granted a regular licence. None of the partners of the first petitioner-firm qualified in the examination during this period. The first petitioner-firm however, had an employee who had passed this examination. This qualified employee, however, left the services of the first petitioner-firm on 20th of March 1988. As a result, the respondents issued a Circular dated 27th of April 1988, which was served on the petitioners on 3rd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 988 has replied to the letter of 2nd of May 1988 and has stated that after a careful consideration of the request for inclusion of Shri Satishchandra T. Parekh as Manager of the first petitioner-firm, the request was rejected by the Collector of Customs. Thereafter the petitioners addressed a letter dated 25th of May 1988, again setting out all the circumstances and requesting the respondents to approve the appointment of Shri S.T. Parekh as their Manager. The respondents by their reply dated 8th of July 1988 have reiterated that this request was already rejected vide their office letter of 20th of May 1988. The respondents further stated that they were unable to accept the contention of the petitioners that Shri S.T. Parekh was appointed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uring the relevant period. The second petitioner has merely made a vague statement that "in view of not being allowed access to customs areas Shri S.T. Parekh was not in firm for a short period but Shri S.T. Parekh who had passed the examination under Rule 9 is presently working with the petitioner-firm since almost last 3 months." These averments do not inspire much confidence. 6. In the premises, we do not see any reason why we should exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the present case. The petition is therefore dismissed with costs. The petitioners apply for continuation of interim orders for some time. We find that the interim order in this writ petition was obtained in the same terms as in Writ Petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
