BRISTO LOGISTICS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions are filed by the respective petitioners who are seeking for a direction to issue licence to the petitioners without insisting for passing any additional examination. It is submitted that the matter is now concluded by the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.4053 -4061 of 2012, in favour of the petitioners.

(2.) The facts of W.P.(C) No.11496/2010, shortly stated, are the following: The petitioners are temporary licence holders and are providing service as Customs House Agents attached to the Customs House, Kochi and Airport. Ext.P1 is the regulations, viz. Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. Ext.P2 is the notification bringing in the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations 2004. It is pointed out that the same has been issued in supersession of Ext.P1 except as respect things done or omitted to be done before such supersession. For issuing regular licence, the petitioners have filed applications as per Exts.P4 to P28, but further actions were not taken. However, a communication was issued as per Ext.P30 stating that an examination is scheduled to be held on 31.3.2010 pointing out that a person who qualified the examination under Regulation 9 of 1984 Regulations is not eligible for the grant of licence under the Regulations 2004. Ext.P31 is the notification amending Ext.P2 retrospectively.

(3.) In W.P.(C) No.38540/2010 the petitioner is a Customs House Agent under temporary licence. He is also seeking for a regular licence and similar contentions have been raised therein also.