Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

M/S B R Ship Air Agency vs Union Of India on 12 September, 2014

                           -1-
                                        WP No.50988/2013



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

     DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014

                        BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH

        WRIT PETITION NO.50988/2013(T-TAR)
BETWEEN:

M/S.B.R.SHIP AIR AGENCY
NO.757, 1ST FLOOR, 6TH MAIN ROAD
KONENA AGRAHARA
BANGALORE-560 017
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PARTNER
MR.A.JAYASINGH                            ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI RAVI M.R.C, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     UNION OF INDIA
       REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
       DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
       MINISTRY OF FINANCE
       NORTH BLOCK
       NEW DELHI-110 001

2.     THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
       BANGALORE CUSTOMS COMMISSIONERATE
       C.R.BUILDINGS, QUEEN'S ROAD
       BANGALORE-560 001              ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI N.R.BHASKAR, ADVOCATE)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARING
REGULATION   23   OF    CUSTOMS    BROKERS    LICENSING
REGULATIONS, 2013 VIDE ANNEX-F AS ULTRA VIRES OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
                              -2-
                                              WP No.50988/2013



     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
                          ORDER

H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):

1. Heard.
2. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the enquiry initiated against the petitioner by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai, in respect of certain allegations made against the petitioner is pending. If the petitioner is absolved of those allegations in the enquiry, and if the suspension of the petitioner's licence is revoked, the petitioner can make an appropriate application before respondent No.2 for recalling the impugned order dated 05.09.2013 (Annexure-E) and on such an application, respondent No.2 will pass an appropriate order in the matter in accordance with law.
3. In view of the above submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no further order is necessary in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of -3- WP No.50988/2013 by placing the submission of the respondents' counsel on record. All contentions of both the parties are kept open. In view of disposal of the writ petition, no order is necessary on IA No.1/2014 filed for interim stay; it stands disposed of accordingly.

Petition disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE KSR