Full Text
Translation output
$-16-24,27&28 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 2235/2013
JATINDER KUMAR BHATIA Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shikha §_apra, Mi". Piyush iCumar and Mr. Asholc Singh, Advocates.
W.P.(C) 2235/2013
JATINDER KUMAR BHATIA Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shikha §_apra, Mi". Piyush iCumar and Mr. Asholc Singh, Advocates.
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Respondent
Through: Mr. Kamal Nijhawan, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Sumit .
Gaur, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Kamal Nijhawan, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Sumit .
Gaur, Advocate.
W.P.(C) 2258/2013
FAFU KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shikha Sapra, Mr. Piyush Kumar and Mr. Ashok Singh, Advocates.
FAFU KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shikha Sapra, Mr. Piyush Kumar and Mr. Ashok Singh, Advocates.
VERSUS
• Standing Counsel with Mr. Sumit W.P.(C) 2260/2013
VIVEK DUTT MISHRA Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shikha Sapra, Mr. Piyush Kumar .
VIVEK DUTT MISHRA Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shikha Sapra, Mr. Piyush Kumar .
VERSUS
, Through: Mr. Kamal Nijhawan, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Sumit yV.P.(C) 2558/2013 with connected matters Page 1 of4
2013:DHC:7186
2013:DHC:7186
W.P.(C)2261/2013 ^
VINOD KUMAR o
™ , . Petitioner
Tniough: Ms. Shildia Sapra, Mr. Piyush Kumar
VINOD KUMAR o
™ , . Petitioner
Tniough: Ms. Shildia Sapra, Mr. Piyush Kumar
VERSUS
COMMISSIONEROFCUSTOMS ' Respondent
W.P.(C) 2262/2013
PADAM SINGH ^ T.. , ,, Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shildia Sapra, Mr. Piyush Kumar
PADAM SINGH ^ T.. , ,, Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shildia Sapra, Mr. Piyush Kumar
VERSUS
COMMISSIONEROF CUSTOMS Respondent
Through; Mr. Kamal Nijhawan, Senior
Through; Mr. Kamal Nijhawan, Senior
W.P.(C) 2263/2013
SAMIRJHA
™ ^ Petitioner
SAMIRJHA
™ ^ Petitioner
VERSUS
Through. Mr. Kamal Nijhawan, Senior
W.P.(C) 2558/2013 with connectedmatters
Page 2 of4 W,P.(C)2273/2013 ^J AJAY KUMAR SINGH Petitioner
Page 2 of4 W,P.(C)2273/2013 ^J AJAY KUMAR SINGH Petitioner
VERSUS
W.P.(C) 2276/2013
KAILASH CHAND MISHRA Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shildia Sapra, Mr. PiyushKumar
KAILASH CHAND MISHRA Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shildia Sapra, Mr. PiyushKumar
VERSUS
W.P.(C) 2313/2013
HARENDRA CHOUDHARY . Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shildia Sapra,Mr. Piyush Kumar and Ml". Ashok Singh, Advocates.
HARENDRA CHOUDHARY . Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shildia Sapra,Mr. Piyush Kumar and Ml". Ashok Singh, Advocates.
VERSUS
W.P.(C) 2558/2013 with connected matters Page 3of4
,W.P.(C)2233/2013 ^ RAJESH KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Ms. ShikhaSapra, Mr. Piyush Kumar
,W.P.(C)2233/2013 ^ RAJESH KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Ms. ShikhaSapra, Mr. Piyush Kumar
VERSUS
Through: Mr. KamalNijhawan, Senior
W.P.(C) 2248/2013
RAHUL ARORA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankit Roopanwal, Advocate.
RAHUL ARORA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankit Roopanwal, Advocate.
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (POLICY) Respondent
Through: Mr. KamalNijhawan, Senior
Through: Mr. KamalNijhawan, Senior
CORAM: , HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
18.04.2013 Mr. Nijhawan says that in view ofthe directions issued hy this Court m W.P.(C) 2336/2013, the same regime will be followed in these cases as well. ^ .
It is ordered accordingly.
Dasti under the signatures ofthe Court Master. O
\ C w RAJIV SHAf^GDHERTj APRIL 18,2013/s.pal
It is ordered accordingly.
Dasti under the signatures ofthe Court Master. O
\ C w RAJIV SHAf^GDHERTj APRIL 18,2013/s.pal
W.P.(C) 2558/2013 with connectedmatters page 4of4
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 2336/2013
DINESH PRATAP SINGH Petitioner
Through; Ms. Shiklia Sapra, Mr. Piyush Kumar
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 2336/2013
DINESH PRATAP SINGH Petitioner
Through; Ms. Shiklia Sapra, Mr. Piyush Kumar
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ' Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
18.04.2013 The broad contours of the writ petition have been narrated in the order dated 12.4.2013. For the sake of brevity, the said order is reproduced hereinafter:
..The learned counsel for the petitioner says that he had appeared for a written examination for obtaining a license as a Custom House Agent. It is submitted that under
Regulation 8 of the Custom House Agents Licensing
Regulations, 2004 (in short the Regulations) the person desirous of taking the examination has to sit for the written examination and also take an oral exam.
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had cleared the written examination on 29.04.2011 and therefore, in terms of Regulation 8(3) he was entitled to take the oral examination within two years of the related written examination irrespective of the number of chances. It is
18.04.2013 The broad contours of the writ petition have been narrated in the order dated 12.4.2013. For the sake of brevity, the said order is reproduced hereinafter:
..The learned counsel for the petitioner says that he had appeared for a written examination for obtaining a license as a Custom House Agent. It is submitted that under
Regulation 8 of the Custom House Agents Licensing
Regulations, 2004 (in short the Regulations) the person desirous of taking the examination has to sit for the written examination and also take an oral exam.
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had cleared the written examination on 29.04.2011 and therefore, in terms of Regulation 8(3) he was entitled to take the oral examination within two years of the related written examination irrespective of the number of chances. It is
W.P. (C)2336/2013 page I of3page stated that if the person fails to clear the oral examination in terms of regulation 8, will he then be declared as having failed the examination completely.
The learned counsel for the petitioner says that, the period of two years will commence from the date ofpublication of the results of the written examination. Since results of the written examination was published on 29.04.2011, the two years period for taking the oral examination would expire only on 28.04.2013. For this purpose, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Kerala High Court
The learned counsel for the petitioner says that, the period of two years will commence from the date ofpublication of the results of the written examination. Since results of the written examination was published on 29.04.2011, the two years period for taking the oral examination would expire only on 28.04.2013. For this purpose, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Kerala High Court
ORDER
in the case of M Ajith Narayan Vs. Commissioner of
Customs, 2009 (237) ELT 665 (Kerala). The learned counsel for the petitioner says that, this judgment has been affirmed by the Division Bench of that court. The Order of the Division Bench is appended at pages 23-24 of the paper book.
Mr. Kamal Nijhawan, who appears for the respondent, on advance notice says that he will take appropriate instructions as to whether the Division Bench's judgment was appealed against and ifso, the result ofthe same.
List for directions on 18.04.2013..." Mr. Nijhawan was asked by the Court as to whether the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, which affirmed the Single
Judge judgment of the same High Court, was carried in appeal in the
Supreme Court. Mr. Nijhawan says that the respondent has not carried the matter in appeal and, therefore, the judgment has attained the finality.
Mr. Nijhawan is, however, right in submitting that the judgment ofthe
Kerala High Court would have only a persuasive value for this Court.
Though the submission is correct, what concerns this Court is that an
W.P.(C) 2336/20]3 page 2 of3 applicant or a petitioner in the Kerala High Court . will enjoy a particular kind of dispensation, whereas the petitioners in other States would be subjected to another kind of dispensation. If courts in the country were to take a different view in a matter, such as this, it would create a strange anomaly insofar as petitioners in different States are concerned.
In matters like this, it would be best for the respondents, if they are aggrieved with the judgment delivered by a Court, to carry the matter to the next appellate forum in order to set the controversy at rest. In any event, having examined the judgments of the Kerala High Court, it cannot but be said that it is a plausible view.
In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed ofwith a direction to the respondent to accord an opportunity to similarly circumstanced persons to take the oral examination if, his/her case falls within the time frame fixed by the aforementioned judgments ofthe High Court ofKerala.
There is no dispute insofar as this petitioner is concerned, that the time frame of two years if, calculated from the date of the publication of the result of the written examination, would expire on 28.4.2013.
In these circumstances, respondent shall permit the petitioner to take the oral examination, on any date convenient, prior to 28.4.2013.
With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is disposed of
Dasti under the signatures ofthe Court Master. i
APRIL 18, 2013 s.pal
Customs, 2009 (237) ELT 665 (Kerala). The learned counsel for the petitioner says that, this judgment has been affirmed by the Division Bench of that court. The Order of the Division Bench is appended at pages 23-24 of the paper book.
Mr. Kamal Nijhawan, who appears for the respondent, on advance notice says that he will take appropriate instructions as to whether the Division Bench's judgment was appealed against and ifso, the result ofthe same.
List for directions on 18.04.2013..." Mr. Nijhawan was asked by the Court as to whether the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, which affirmed the Single
Judge judgment of the same High Court, was carried in appeal in the
Supreme Court. Mr. Nijhawan says that the respondent has not carried the matter in appeal and, therefore, the judgment has attained the finality.
Mr. Nijhawan is, however, right in submitting that the judgment ofthe
Kerala High Court would have only a persuasive value for this Court.
Though the submission is correct, what concerns this Court is that an
W.P.(C) 2336/20]3 page 2 of3 applicant or a petitioner in the Kerala High Court . will enjoy a particular kind of dispensation, whereas the petitioners in other States would be subjected to another kind of dispensation. If courts in the country were to take a different view in a matter, such as this, it would create a strange anomaly insofar as petitioners in different States are concerned.
In matters like this, it would be best for the respondents, if they are aggrieved with the judgment delivered by a Court, to carry the matter to the next appellate forum in order to set the controversy at rest. In any event, having examined the judgments of the Kerala High Court, it cannot but be said that it is a plausible view.
In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed ofwith a direction to the respondent to accord an opportunity to similarly circumstanced persons to take the oral examination if, his/her case falls within the time frame fixed by the aforementioned judgments ofthe High Court ofKerala.
There is no dispute insofar as this petitioner is concerned, that the time frame of two years if, calculated from the date of the publication of the result of the written examination, would expire on 28.4.2013.
In these circumstances, respondent shall permit the petitioner to take the oral examination, on any date convenient, prior to 28.4.2013.
With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is disposed of
Dasti under the signatures ofthe Court Master. i
APRIL 18, 2013 s.pal
W.P.(C) 2336/2013 c
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J page 3 of3
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J page 3 of3