S.B.INTERNATIONAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 27.9.2004, the petitioner was granted a registration certificate in terms of Section 11 of the Emigration Act, 1983. The said registration was valid for a period of five years i.e. 27.9.2004 to 26.9.2009. On receipt of a complaint from one Mr. Sudarshan alleging therein that he had applied for the post of plumber but the R.A. had deployed him for the post of Ironsmith with RAK Investment Authority/MR Group Building Cont., LLC, UAE and since validity of his visa had already expired when he landed in the airport on the midnight of 18.6.2008, he was sent back and his passport was retained. He claimed to have paid a sum of Rs.80,000/ - to the recruiting agent. Vide order dated 29.1.2010/1.2.2010, the Protector General of Emigrants/ Registering Authority, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Section 14(j) of the Emigration Act cancelled the registration of the petitioner and also required him to show cause as to why his bank guarantee should not be forfeited.

(2.) THE petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 23 of the Emigration Act against the aforesaid order dated 1.2.2010. The appeal, however, was dismissed vide order dated 14.7.2010. The bank guarantee of the petitioner was later forfeited vide order dated 3.1.2011. The petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P(C) No.1634/2011 before this Court challenging the order 1.2.2010 as also the order of the Appellate Authority dated 14.7.2010. Vide order dated 6.5.2011, this Court set aside the order of the Appellate Authority dated 14.7.2010 and remanded the matter back to it with direction to dispose of the appeal on merit. It was further directed that the Appellate Authority shall also pass consequential order regarding bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner. The petitioner who was also given liberty to avail such remedy as may be available to it in law.

(3.) IT is an admitted case that the registration certificate issued to the petitioner expired by afflux of time on 26.9.2009. The show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner only on 6.1.2010 which was more than three months after the registration certificate had already been expired by afflux of time. There could be no question of cancelling the registration certificate which had already expired by afflux of time. The exercise undertaken by the respondent no.2 vide notice dated 6.1.2010 was, therefore, a superfluous exercise considering that the registration certificate which he was seeking to cancel had already outlived its life. To this extent, the impugned orders need to be set aside. Ordered accordingly.