Court quashes license revocation order for lack of notice violating natural justice principles

The court quashed the order revoking the customs broker license and imposing a penalty due to lack of proper notice indicating disagreement with the Enquiry Officer's report. The judge held that the absence of a clear proposal of disagreement violated natural justice principles, causing surprise to the petitioner. The respondent was directed to issue a fresh notice explaining reasons for not accepting the report, allowing the petitioner to respond and have a personal hearing within three months.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to revocation of customs broker license and imposition of penalty based on disagreement with Enquiry Officer's report without proper notice.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a licensed Customs Broker, challenged the revocation of their license and imposition of a penalty by the respondent without proper notice indicating disagreement with the Enquiry Officer's report. The petitioner argued that the respondent should have clearly indicated any disagreement before taking adverse action. The respondent, in their defense, detailed the events leading to the impugned order but did not dispute the lack of a clear proposal of disagreement in the initial notice to the petitioner.

The court, after hearing both parties, considered the facts, submissions, and relevant judgments. The judge opined that the order revoking the license could not be legally sustained. It was highlighted that when an Enquiry Report favors the petitioner, any subsequent notice should clearly state whether the respondent agrees or disagrees with the report. The absence of such a notice indicating disagreement led to the petitioner assuming the report would be accepted. This lack of clarity violated the rules of natural justice, causing surprise to the petitioner. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondent to issue a fresh notice explaining the reasons for not accepting the Enquiry Officer's findings. The petitioner was granted an opportunity to respond and have a personal hearing before the respondent issues a new order within three months from the date of the judgment.

---