Calcutta High Court
Ashok Kumar Verma vs Union Of India & Anr on 7 October, 2013
Author: I.P.Mukerji
Bench: I. P. Mukerji
ORDER SHEET
WP No.1103 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
ASHOK KUMAR VERMA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI
Date : 7th October, 2013.
Appearance:
Mr. R.K.Chowdhury, Advocate
Ms. Saswati Joardar, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. R.Bharadwaj, Advocate
Mr. K.K.Maiti, Advocate
for the respondents
The Court: At the moment, I am not disturbing the impugned order dated 3rd December, 2012, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Administration), Customs House, Kolkata.
I make it absolutely plain that at this point of time, I have not gone into the merits of the matter because the merits of the matter were not required to be gone into at this stage, considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner which are stated below.
Mr. Chowdhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Commissioner while passing the impugned order had not ruled on the question of jurisdiction which had been kept open by the Division Bench presided over by Justice Sengupta in its order dated 25th September, 2012 in CUSTA 6 of 2012, GA 2558 of 2012 (M/s. R.N.Lall & Bros. -vs- Union of India & Ors.) 2 The question of jurisdiction, raised by Mr. Chowdhury in short is that the proceedings starting from suspension upto revocation of licence are time bound by the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations 2004. The time prescribed for each stage of action was fixed and there was no question of relaxation or condonation. The proceedings against the writ petitioner had not been conducted within the time frame as prescribed by the regulations. Therefore, they had lapsed or had become void.
Mr. Bharadwaj very painstakingly took me through the findings part of the order of the Commissioner. I find that the Commissioner assumed that he had decided the question of jurisdiction but in fact he had not.
The question of jurisdiction is raised more elaborately in the reply to the show cause notice and in the written notes of argument filed by the petitioner.
In those circumstances, I direct the Commissioner to revise his order of 3rd December, 2012, by deciding the question of jurisdiction by way of a reasoned order within three months of communication of this order. The order is to be passed upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. If upon determining the question of jurisdiction the Commissioner finds that the proceedings have lapsed or have become void or cannot be continued any further, he will record the same and recall the findings part of the impugned order. If the Commissioner rules otherwise, then he can simply affirm that he has already passed. All rights of the writ petitioner with regard to the merits of the matter discussed by the Commissioner are kept open to be urged if so required after the adjudication is made by the Commissioner. I make it clear that for the revision of the order to be 3 made by the Commissioner of Customs, the merits of the matter need not be gone into at all. I have not gone into the merits of the case and all issues are open before the appropriate forum.
This writ application is accordingly disposed of. All parties concerned to act on a signed photocopy of this order upon the usual undertakings.
(I.P.MUKERJI, J.) G/