Court upholds decision on Customs House Agent license renewal, rejects discrimination claim, allows reapplication under new Regulations.

The court upheld the decision not to renew a temporary license for a Customs House Agent due to the representative's failure to pass the examination within the stipulated time frame. The court found that the regulation providing differing time frames for passing the examination was not discriminatory as applicants under old and new regulations were considered distinct categories. The challenge against Regulation 8(5) was dismissed, but the petitioner was allowed to apply for a new license under the new Regulations if the representative qualified the examination within the specified time.

---

---

Issues:
Validity of Regulation 8(5) under Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations challenged for being discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Analysis:
The petitioner company was issued a temporary license as a Customs House Agent under the Regulations. The validity of the license was extended up to a certain date, and the petitioner was required to pass a written and oral examination within two years from the date of issuance. The petitioner challenged the validity of Regulation 8(5) on the grounds of discrimination, as it provided a shorter period for holders of temporary licenses compared to applicants under Regulation 8(4, who were allowed seven years to pass the examination.

The petitioner's representative failed to pass the examination within the stipulated time frame, leading to the expiration of the temporary license. The petitioner contended that the regulation was discriminatory and arbitrary, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondents argued that the provision for temporary licenses was omitted in the 2004 Regulations, and applicants under different regulations formed distinct categories, justifying the differing time frames for passing the examination.

The court noted that the system of issuing temporary licenses was discontinued under the new Regulations, and applicants under the old and new regulations were considered different classes. The court held that those holding temporary licenses under the old regulations were given a reasonable period for renewal, contingent upon passing the examination. The court found no grounds to sustain the challenges against Regulation 8(5) and upheld the decision not to renew the license due to the representative's failure to qualify the examination.

Ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was granted the liberty to apply for a fresh license under the new Regulations if the authorized representative qualified the examination within the stipulated time frame, irrespective of the expiration of the temporary license.

---