9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r has been cancelled. The order dated 3-9-2010 issued under Regulation No. 20 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations of 2004") was earlier questioned before this Court in Writ Petition No. 4849 of 2010 and on 4-10-2010, that petition was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to avail of the appropriate remedy in law. 3.It appears that, thereafter, the petitioner approached the Chief Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise by way of representation. That Authority has, on 12-10-2010, passed the order of which implementation is sought. The Authority has mentioned Regulation 20(2) of the Regulations of 2004 r/w. Section 5(2) of the Customs Act as source of power. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated 3-9-2010, is produced before this Court. That original shows that the Chief Commissioner at Nagpur has approved the note prepared on 28-9-2010 and 29-9-2010 on 30-9-2010. The said note was then forwarded to the Chief Commissioner (Bhopal Zone) and it was returned back as the Chief Commissioner was not available at Bhopal. It was then sent to the Chief Commissioner of Customs at Delhi. The Chief Commissioner at Delhi has signed it, but he has not put any date on it. 7. Learned Counsel Mr. Jagtap has pointed out that the afore-mentioned signature at Delhi is obviously put after 26-10-2010 as per movement of file, as reflected in the reply-affidavit. Mr. Mishra, learned A.S.G.I. has submitted that as the note approved by the Chief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... various provisions and find that authority is not conferred upon the Chief Commissioner when a quasi judicial order is passed under Regulation No. 20 r/w. Regulation 22 by a Commissioner. The Chief Commissioner could have interfered with it only if he had an express authority due to a particular Regulation or a provision of law. Unless such provision or Regulation of law is pointed out to this Court, the order dated 12-10-2010 cannot be said to have any judicial existence and it cannot be implemented. 13. Insofar as challenge to order dated 3-9-2010 is concerned, the issue is already covered by the order passed by this Court dated 4-10-2010 in W.P. No. 4849 of 2010. Hence, with liberty to the petitioner to follow that course further, we d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
