9911796707
TMI Blog1960 (2) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f goods or baggage shall so act in any custom house unless such authorisation is approved by the Customs Collector". "…………………………………………………………………" "such officer may, in case of misbehaviour of the person so authorised, suspend or withdraw such approval.. ................ ... " 2.He had been obtaining a renewal of this licence from time to time, till the Assistant Collector of Customs declined by Ext. P5 to renew it after June 27, 1957. This petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution and is for quashing Ext. P-5 and for the issue of a writ of Mandamus, directing respondents 1 and 2, who are the Assistant Collector and the Collector of Customs, to return the licence granted to the petitioner, and to allow him to carry on hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of each licence or generally by framing a rule regulating the issue of all such licences. The latter course was adopted in the present case. The petitioner himself seemed to be in no state of uncertainty about his rights and got his licence renewed from time to time even before section 202 was amended. The first contention of the petitioner is therefore overruled. 3.The petitioner's case is that he has a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(8) of the constitution to carry on his business as Custom House Broker, for which no licence is necessary, having obtained an irrevocable licence under Section 202 before its amendment. The contention of the respondents as appears from the counter affidavit is, that a licence is necessary, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1956. By Ext. P-5 the Assistant Collector of Customs ordered that no renewal could be made as from June 18, 1957. The petitioner challenged this order on appeal before the Customs Collector but it was dismissed by Ext. P-7 dated August 31, 1957. It was indicated in the preface to Ext. P-7, that the petitioner's remedy lay in moving the Central Government by a revision petition, and probably acting on this suggestion, the petitioner applied in revision to the Central Government by Ext. P-8 on September 23, 1957. The revision petition was dismissed by Ext. P-9 on June 26, 1958, and this petition was preferred within one month of that date. For the decision of this case, it may be taken, that the revision petition to the Central Government was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is sufficient to state, that in the present case, the breach complained of in keeping the petitioner out of his business can well be regarded as a continuing one. In Sikri Brothers v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1957 Punjab 220 Bhandari, C.J. while not taking any exception to the above view, ruled that this consideration was not available, in the case before him the fundamental right the breach of which was complained of being subject to a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Article 19(6). These cases, in my opinion, do lend support to the proposition, that in cases invoking the violation of fundamental rights the delay in applying under Article 226 must be viewed differently. The same view has been taken in cases of illegal taxation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
