Concorde Zoom vs Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin

T. Raja, J.—The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the Order No. C. No. VIII/13/42/2010-CHAL, dated 13-9-2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Tuticorin. Regulation 23 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 reads as under:-

Prohibition. - Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations, the Commissioner of Customs may prohibit any Customs Broker from working in one or more Sections of the Customs Station, if he is satisfied that such Customs Broker has not fulfilled his obligations as laid down under regulation 11 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 23 is in the nature of interlocutory order for want of jurisdiction of the authorities to pass an 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 jurisdiction under Regulation 20.

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 23 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 and 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, M.P. (MD) No. 2 of 2013 is closed. No costs.