Remanded

Manilal Patel Clearing and Forwarding Private Limited v. the Union of India and Ord.

Bombay HC14 Jun 2011WP/4229/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the revocation of CHA licence by Commissioner of Customs. Finding the order passed in breach of principles of natural justice due to lack of personal hearing, the High Court set aside the impugned decision and remanded proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned decision dated 9 May 2011 set aside; proceedings remitted to Commissioner for fresh disposal after furnishing opportunity of being heard within two weeks.

Manilal Patel Clearing and Forwarding Private Limited… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

VBC 1 wp4229.11-14.6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.4229 OF 2011

¶4

Manilal Patel Clearing & Forwarding Pvt.Ltd. Vs. The Union of India & Ors.

¶5

...Petitioner.

¶6

...Respondents.

¶7

Mr.J.J.Bhatt, Senior Advocate with Mr.Prakash Shah i/b.PDS Legal for the Petitioner. Mr.Pradeep S.Jetly for the Respondents.

¶8

CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.

¶9

June 14, 2011 .

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

The Petitioner has challenged an order of the

¶12

Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, of 9 May 2011, revoking its CHA Licence under Regulation 22(7) of the Customs

¶13

House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004. The Commissioner had

¶14

appointed an Enquiry Officer to entire into the charges framed against the Petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 15 April 2011 exonerating the Petitioner. A copy of the report was furnished to the Petitioner, upon which the Petitioner submitted a representation seeking that the proceedings be dropped and that the CHA Licence be restored. The Commissioner of Customs has,

¶15

VBC 2 wp4229.11-14.6

¶16

however, taken a different view and has come to the conclusion that an order revoking the licence of the Petitioner was warranted.

¶17

Before the Court it is not in dispute that the Commissioner of Customs did not furnish an opportunity of a personal hearing to the Petitioner before arriving at the impugned decision. In this view of the matter, it is evident that the decision of the Commissioner has been arrived at in violation of the principles of natural justice. Since the order of the Commissioner is in breach of the principles of natural justice, we are of the view that it would not be in the interests of justice to relegate the Petitioner to pursue the alternate remedy of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and that the appropriate order to be passed would be to set aside the impugned decision and to remand the proceedings back to the Commissioner for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. Accordingly, without expressing any view on the merits of the rival contentions, we set aside the impugned decision of the Commissioner dated 19 May 2011 only on the ground that it was passed in breach of the principles of natural justice. The proceedings shall stand remitted back to the Commissioner of Customs, who shall pass an order afresh, after furnishing the

¶18

VBC 3 wp4229.11-14.6

¶19

Petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

¶20

During the pendency of the proceedings before the Commissioner of Customs, the CHA Licence of the Petitioner was

¶21

suspended. Since the Petitioner is out of business and which position shall continue until the Commissioner passes a fresh order upon remand, we direct that the Commissioner shall expedite the enquiry and shall pass a reasoned order, after hearing the Petitioner within a period of two week from the date of the communication of the order to the Commissioner.

¶22

The Petitioner shall appear before the Commissioner on 17 June 2011 at 11 a.m. for directions.

Manilal Patel Clearing and Forwarding Private Limited v. the Union of India and Ord.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manilal Patel Clearing and Forwarding Private Limited v. the Union of India and Ord.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naman Associates Vs the State of Maharashtra

M/S Parul Builders and Developers Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sakharam Anand Maladkar and Ors. Vs the Chief Officer, Konkan Housing and Area Development Board, and Ors.

Essel Mining and Industries Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Essel Mining and Industries Ltd. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

The Menon Co. Op. Bank Ltd., Vs the District Magistrate Satara and Ors.