A.M. Ahamed and Co. vs Commissioner of Customs

Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order No. C. No.

VIII/13/18/2001-CHAL, dated 6-9-2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Tuticorin. The Regulation 21 of the

Customs House Licence reads as under:

Regulation 21. Prohibition. - Notwithstanding anything contained in regulation 22, the Commissioner of Customs may prohibit any customs House

Agent from working in one or more Sections of the Customs Station, if he is satisfied that such Customs House Agent has not fulfilled his

obligations as laid down under regulation 13 in relation to work in that Section or Sections.

The impugned order is challenged only on the ground that before passing the prohibitory order against the petitioner, an opportunity of hearing

was not given to the petitioner.

On notice, the Writ Petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that the order under Regulation 21 is in the

nature of interlocutory order for want of jurisdiction of the authorities to pass order of revocation or suspension, therefore no show-cause notice is

required to be issued.

On consideration, I find that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The order of prohibition is a final order passed by the authority not vested

any power to exercise of jurisdiction under Regulation 22.

It is now well-settled law that even administrative orders which affects the rights of a party can be passed only by following the principles of

natural justice. That Order under Regulation 21 was passed in violation of principles of natural justice on the face of it is arbitrary and thus not

sustainable in law.

The Writ Petition accordingly is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondent to pass fresh order in

accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.