TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can be entertained despite the availability of alternative remedy the Managing Director of the petitioner company is permitted to submit their written explanation to the notices issued by the 1st respondent within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such explanation, the 1st respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders according to law after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Petition is disposed off. - HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO AND HON BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA For the Petitioner : Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar For the Respondents : Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, Standing counsel for CBIC ORDER: (PER HON BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA) The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: ...to issue a Writ or Order more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the impugned orders dated 24.03.2023 and 11.04.2023 issued by the respondent is illegal, arbitrary, capricious and in violation of Regulation 16 of CBIR 2018 and Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remand and the other Directors or CEO of the company are only nominal and are not conversant with the procedure and nature of work. 2.6. Though time was requested till 20.04.2023 on the ground that the Managing Director would be released on bail, without hearing the petitioner company, the 1st respondent issued impugned Order F.No. GEN/CB/ LIC/F/45/2021-CB-CBS, dated 11.04.2023 for continuing the suspension of Customs Broker Licence till conclusion of the investigation. 2.7. The Managing Director of the petitioner company was released on bail on 19.04.2023, but the 1st respondent issued the impugned order arbitrarily without affording any hearing and it falls against the principles of natural justice. Hence, Writ Petition. 3. Version of the Respondent 3.1. The 1st respondent filed its counter stating that under Regulations 16 or 17, a Customs Broker, who is aggrieved by any order passed by Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, may prefer an appeal to Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, vide Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 and as per the Customs Broker Regulations, 2018. The petitioner without availing such appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned on its merits since they could not file their objections on the notice issued by the 1st respondent. He would submit that it is a clear case of utter disregard to the principles of natural justice in terms of Regulation 16 (2) of CBLR, 2018. He argues that prescribed time schedule that is to be followed for suspension of licence was not followed as within fifteen days from the date of preliminary suspension, personal hearing has to be concluded and the authorities are supposed to pass orders either for revocation or continuation of suspension. He would further submit that despite making several requests to postpone the hearing as the Managing Director of the Petitioner was in judicial custody, the 1st respondent arbitrarily passed the order for continuation of suspension. As such, opportunity should be given to the petitioner to submit their objections. 7. Per contra, Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned standing counsel would submit that the impugned orders are on correct lines and that the 1st respondent passed the impugned order after duly following the procedure under the Customs Act. Moreover, in case the Petitioner is aggrieved, it must avail the statutory remedies and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rms a cornerstone in the doctrine of principles of natural justice. The opportunity must be real, reasonable, and effective and not a mere empty formality as laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India(1978) 1 SCC 248. Limitation of time cannot come in the way of giving a real and reasonable opportunity to the affected party for an effective hearing. 11. Further, the position of rule of alternate remedy vis- -vis maintainability of writ petitions, has been examined by several judgments of the Hon ble Apex Court and this Court as well, but it is profitable to refer to a judgment rendered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in M /s Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (2021) 6 SCC 771, relying on Whirlpool Corporation v Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai (1998) 8 SCC 1, and Harbanslal Sahnia v Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd (2003) 2 SCC 107, summed up the principles at para 27 which read thus; 27.1 The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well. 27.2 The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
