FAST & ECONOMIC COURIER Vs. COMMR. OF CUS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext. P3 order passed by the respondent, whereby the request made by the petitioner to permit the petitioner to resume the courier business on the strength of the licence issued earlier (which was originally set aside/revoked by the respondent and which later came to be intercepted by virtue of the order passed by the Chief Commissioner vide Ext. P2), was turned down. The petitioner was granted necessary licence to run the courier business in the Trivandrum International Airport, who was pursuing the operation as above. But the licence came to be revoked by the respondent as per Ext. P1 order dated 25-3-2013. Met with the situation, the petitioner approached the Chief Commissioner, invoking the power and procedure under Regulation 14(2) of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 (CIECR, 1998). After considering the same, the Chief Commissioner observed that the course pursued by the respondent was not correct or sustainable and accordingly, the same was intercepted, directing to constitute an Inquiry Committee to look into the matter and to have the proceedings finalised as above. It is stated that Committee has been constituted to consider all the relevant aspects and the inquiry is going on. Since Ext. P1 order passed by the respondent has already been set aside by the Chief Commissioner as per Ext. P2 order, the petitioner claims that, they are entitled to continue the business and hence approached the respondent for granting permission to resume the business (as discernible from Ext. P3 communication, wherein a reference is made to the letter dated 17-7-2013 sent by the petitioner). This however came to be rejected as per Ext. P4 letter dated 22-7-2013, holding that the petitioner has to wait till orders for reinstatement are passed, which in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent as well.

(3.) It is brought to the notice of this Court that, in respect of similar circumstance (wherein the licence of other similarly situated persons who are operating courier business in the very same Airport came to be suspended), on filing appropriate proceedings before the respondent, the matter was caused to be considered, also in the light of the observations made by the Chief Commissioner about the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer, holding that the enquiry report was not acceptable. In the said circumstances, the respondent himself has observed that he does not want to go into the merits of the case, in view of the above finding of the Chief Commissioner. Accordingly, as per order bearing No. 10/2013 (CUS.TECH), dated 2-8-2013 a 'finding' (as given in paragraph 41) and an 'order' (as given in paragraph 42) were arrived at, which are reproduced herein below: