The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Airport Special Cargo dated 19 August 2019 and 30 September 2019, whereby the latter had refused to renew the registration of the Petitioner. The Court observed that the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to explain before taking the impugned decision.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner is engaged in the international carriage of time-sensitive documents and parcels on scale. The petitioner was registered as an authorized courier under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations 1998. According to the Petitioner, since 1996, its courier license has been renewed from time to time. The renewal granted to the Petitioner on 23 June 2017 was for two years. Before the expiry of the registration period, Petitioner made an application for renewal on 8 April 2019 as per the Regulations.
The Deputy Commissioner of Customs called upon the Petitioner to furnish certain documents as regards the application for renewal ― which were furnished by the Petitioner on 4 June 2019 and 18 June 2019. The renewal application was rejected by impugned orders dated 19 August 2019 and 30 September 2019. The Petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Bench dismissed the appeal by order dated 27 January 2022, holding that it is not maintainable. Hence, the present writ.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the appeal was maintainable and that while refusing to issue the license or renew the license, no opportunity of any hearing was given to the Petitioner. The Petitioner relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High court in the case of A.S.Vason and sons Vs. Union of India [2009(238) ELT 217(Bom.)].
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the Tribunal had rightly dismissed the appeal as not maintainable as renewing the registration license is merely an administrative order.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Dr. Bipanai Dei [AIR 1967 SC 1269], as back as in the year 1967, had observed that even an administrative order or decision in matters involving civil consequences has to be made consistent with the rules of natural justice. Law has further developed since then and the concept of natural justice is generally read into administrative actions involving civil consequences unless the governing statute excludes the application of natural justice by express language.
Further, with respect to the current case, the Court held that the non-renewal clearly had civil consequences and severe implications for the Petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to explain before taking the impugned decision.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, allowing the petition, held that the decision was taken without giving opportunity to explain and thus, will have to be set aside.
Case Title: Aramex India Private Limited vs Union of India and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Nitin Jamdar and Hon’ble Justice Abhay Ahuja
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 32126 OF 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Prakash Shah
Advocate for the Respondent No.1: Mr. Karan Adik
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
