Court upholds license cancellation due to public warehouse availability, rejects challenge to constitutionality.

The Court upheld the cancellation of the private warehouse license, determining it was justified due to the availability of a public bonded warehouse. The Court emphasized that the Customs Act provisions allowed for license cancellation without a hearing in specific circumstances, where no breach inquiry was necessary. It rejected the challenge to the constitutionality of the relevant clause, finding no arbitrariness in the decision. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order cancelling warehouse license based on jurisdiction and constitutionality of Customs Act provisions.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to quash an order by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, regarding non-renewal of a private warehouse license due to the opening of a Public Bonded Warehouse. The petitioner argued that the order was without jurisdiction as it effectively canceled the license. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 were arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner raised concerns about lack of opportunity to be heard under clause (a) compared to clause (b) of the Act.

Upon considering the arguments and provisions of the Act, the Court found that the cancellation of the license was justified. The Act allows for licensing of private warehouses only when public warehouse facilities are not available for storing imported goods. In this case, a public warehouse facility was accessible in Ludhiana, rendering the private warehouse license unnecessary. The Court noted that the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 58 come into play in case of breaches of Act provisions or rules, involving a penalty and a hearing for the licensee. Conversely, clause (a) allows for license cancellation without a hearing, as it pertains to situations where no breach inquiry is required. The Court emphasized that the principles of natural justice do not apply where the legislature explicitly excludes them, as in this scenario.

The Court rejected the challenge to the constitutionality of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 58, as the public warehousing facility was available for the petitioner's goods, justifying the non-renewal of the license. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments of arbitrariness. As no other points were raised, the petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

---