Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2005 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (5) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT OF DELHIMaintainability of the writ petition - Customs House Agent's Licence - Suspension/revocation of licence - services of clearing and presenting documents on behalf of the importers/exporters - Violation of principles of Natural justice - ex facie demonstrates - HELD THAT:- In cases where the conduct of the agent is such that it would cause serious prejudice to the public interest as well as violates the provisions of the Act, it may be a case of invoking the provisions of the regulations with immediate effect. The provisions of the Act and the regulations classify different situations. The situations relate to providing of right of hearing in terms of regulation 22 for invoking powers under the regulations 20(1), while in an emergent situation under regulation 20(2) the post-decisional hearing but within the shortest span would be adequate compliance to the principles of natural justice. We must herein emphasise the need on the part of the authorities to no way prolong the order of suspension even by a day than necessary, without granting hearing to the applicant. In the present case, no circumstances existed which would suggest invoking of this emergency provisions without taking recourse to the principle of natural justice. Furthermore, the order does not state, much less specifically give reasons which show proper application of mind by the concerned authorities for arriving at such a conclusion. Even administrative orders should be supported by proper reasons and application of mind. We have already noticed that respondents have raised a preliminary objection to the very maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner should take recourse to the alternative statutory remedy of appeal provided under Section 128 of the Act and more particularly under regulation 22(8), which specifically grants right of appeal to an agent against such an order of the authority before the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. No doubt, an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under the regulations itself, but that by itself may not be a sufficient ground for dismissing the writ petition because of availability of alternative remedy particularly when the order impugned in the writ petition is passed in violation to the provisions of the regulations and is also clearly against the principles of natural justice. Patent violation of principles of natural justice or basic rule of law would vitiate the order and the proceedings in their entirety It is not an absolute rule of law that availability of an alternative remedy would bar entertainment of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, always and in all circumstances. It is obligatory upon the respondent who raises such an objection to show that remedy is not of onorous character and is adequately effective in the facts of the given case. It should also show that compliance of such alternative remedy would not be a mere formality but would be in consonance with the concept of substantial justice. The existence of an alternative remedy does not per se bar the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 but only raises a point for its consideration in the exercise of its discretion. Thus, we would allow this writ petition and quash the order of suspension dated 5th January, 2005. However, the respondents would be at liberty to re-consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law.
|