9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a private limited company and is engaged in the business of cargo clearance and claims itself to be a member of IATA and FIATA. It has its branches at Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore, Bhadohi, Kanpur, Panipat and Moradabad. According to the petitioner, it has in its employment more than 300 persons. For getting the goods cleared at the Custom House, it requires a licence, known as, Custom House Agent Licence (hereinafter referred to as "the licence"). 3.It applied for grant of a temporary licence which was issued on 20-11-2000 which was valid for a period of one year. The Custom House work, according to the licence, was to be transacted through one of the following persons, namely :- Sarvasri (i) Vinay Kumar Mishra; (ii) Mohan Tiwari; (iii) M.N. Bawari; (iv) Anil Yadav; and (v) R.S. Tiwari. 3.According to the petitioner, in the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 12th July 2001, one Sri Subhash Tomar was inducted as a Director of the company. The induction of Sr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, on similar facts, the Commissioner, Custom, relying upon an appellate order wherein it hits been held that a qualified person from the market can be taken by a temporary licence holder to meet the requirement of Regulation 9 for the purposes of regularization. The temporary licence of M/s. Narender Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. has been regularized by the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chennai, vide order dated 26th July 2001, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure P11 to the writ petition. He submitted that similar treatment should be given to the petitioner also. 7.The learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that under Regulation 9 a person holding a temporary licence is required to appear and qualify in the examination held under Regulation 9 and only thereafter under Regulation 10, it could be granted a regular licence. If a holder of a temporary licence takes a person from outside, who had qualified under Regulation 9, the holder of temporary licence would not ipso facto be entitled to grant of a permanent recognition. He referred to Regulation 18 which provides for engagement of a person qualified in the examination referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will not be required to appear in the written examination in the subsequent chances.) ….. ….. ….. 5. The holders of a regular licence under Regulation 10 may authorize one of their employees or partners or directors, to appear for the examination referred to in sub-regulation (1), on behalf of such holders of regular licence in addition to the person of their agency who has passed the examination referred to in sub-regulation (1)." 9.Regulation 10 provides for the grant of regular licence. It provides that the Commissioner shall grant a regular licence to such holder of a temporary licence, who has qualified in an examination, referred to in Regulation 9. Under sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 10, the Commissioner is empowered to reject an application for grant of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been any provision, like Regulation 20(3) and (4). 12.No support can be drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, in the matter of M/s. Narender Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. as we have already come to the conclusion that engagement of a person who had already qualified Regulation 9 examination, would not entitle a temporary licence holder for being converted its licence into a permanent one. It is well settled that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not apply to quasi-judicial or judicial orders passed by a Court of law. 13.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandigarh Administration and Another v. Jagjit Singh and Another, (1995) 1 SCC 745 has held as follows :- We are of the opinion that the basis or the principle, if it"8. can be called one, on which the writ petition has been allowed by the High Court is unsustainable in law and indefensible in principle. Since, we have come across many such instances, we think it necessary to deal with such pleas at a little length. Generally speaking, the mere fact that the respondent-authority has passed a particular order in the case of another person similar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In our considered opinion, such a course - barring exceptional situations - would neither be advisable nor desirable. In other words, the High Court cannot ignore the law and the well-accepted norms governing the writ jurisdiction and say that because in one case a particular order has been passed or a particular action has been taken, the same must be repeated irrespective of the fact whether such an order or action is contrary to law or otherwise. Each case must be decided on its own merits, factual and legal, in accordance with relevant legal principles. The orders and actions of the authorities cannot be equated to the judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Courts nor can they be elevated to the level of the precedent, as understood in the judicial world. (What is the position in the case of orders passed by the authorities in exercise of theirs quasi-judicial powers, we express no opinion. That can be dealt with when a proper case arise.)." 14.The aforesaid decision has been followed subsequently in the case of Yadu Nandan Garg v. State of Rajasthan and Others, (1996) 1 SCC 334; Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Daulat Mai Jain and Others, (1997) 1 SCC 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
