2023 (2) TMI 551 - HC - Customs

Court quashes courier registration non-renewal, orders hearing for natural justice

Aramex India Private Limited Versus Union of India and ors.

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the non-renewal decision of the Petitioner's courier registration. The Court directed the Respondent to ... Authorized courier - Refusal to renew the registration of the Petitioner - Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations 1998 - while refusing to issue the license or renew the license, no opportunity of any hearing was given to the Petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The observations of the Division Bench in the case of A.S. Vasan and sons [2009 (4) TMI 100 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] are pertinent. In this case a courier who was aggrieved by non-renewal under the Regulations of 2010 had approached this court. Allowing the challenge on the ground of lack of hearing, the Division Bench observed that there can be no dispute that the order rejecting application has visited the petitioner with civil consequences. In a case where an order whether it be administrative or quasi judicial, visits the party with civil consequences in absence of any statutory exclusion under the Regulations, there would be a right to a hearing, and the right to hearing would include right to a person being heard in person if such a request is made. The Division Bench accordingly set aside the order of non-renewal on that count. From the scheme of the Regulation 2010 it is clear that the Regulations themselves contemplate an application for renewal. Grant of renewal thereof is conditional upon factual position specified in the Regulations. Not granting registration at the first instance would stand on a different footing than a case where registration is renewed from time to time over a long period and then not renewed. The Petitioner was an authorized courier for almost 25 years and the registration was renewed from time to time. Petitioner states that it has invested substantial amounts towards the business. Therefore, the non-renewal clearly had civil consequences and severe implications for the Petitioner. In these circumstances the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to explain before taking the impugned decision. The decision taken without giving opportunity to explain will thus have to be set aside. Non-renewal therefore had serious implications for the Petitioner. The view taken by the Division Bench in the case of A.S.Vasan and sons should also be extended to the Petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case the opportunity to the Petitioner be given in form of hearing - It is not necessary to go into issue of maintainability of the appeal and the same is kept open - Petition allowed. Issues:Petitioner's grievance against refusal to renew registration as an authorized courier under the Courier Imports and Exports Regulations 1998, maintainability of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, lack of opportunity for hearing before non-renewal decision, interpretation of Regulations 2010 regarding registration and renewal process.Analysis:1. The Petitioner, engaged in international carriage of time-sensitive documents, challenged the orders refusing to renew their registration as an authorized courier. The Regulations of 2010 define an 'authorized courier' and outline the process for registration and renewal under the Customs Act. The Petitioner's license was renewed periodically since 1996, with the last renewal in 2017 for two years. The renewal application in 2019 was rejected, leading to an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed on the grounds of maintainability.2. The primary contention revolved around the lack of opportunity for a hearing before the non-renewal decision, citing a previous Division Bench decision emphasizing the right to a hearing when administrative orders have civil consequences. The Respondents argued that the appeal was rightly dismissed as non-maintainable, stating that renewing a registration license is an administrative order. The Regulations of 2010, particularly Regulation 10, govern the registration and renewal process for authorized couriers, emphasizing compliance and satisfactory performance for renewal.3. The Division Bench's observations in a similar case highlighted the importance of natural justice principles even in administrative actions with civil consequences. The Petitioner, being an authorized courier for almost 25 years with substantial investments, faced severe implications due to non-renewal. The Court concluded that the decision to not renew the registration without a hearing must be set aside, extending the principles of natural justice to the Petitioner in line with the previous judicial precedent.4. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned orders and reviving the renewal application. The Respondent was directed to provide a hearing opportunity to the Petitioner within a specified timeframe for further decision as per Regulation 10 of the Regulations 2010. The Court clarified that its observations focused on natural justice principles and not on the merits of the case, leaving the decision on merits to the Respondent.5. The judgment emphasized the significance of providing a fair hearing opportunity before decisions with civil consequences and upheld the Petitioner's right to explanation in the non-renewal process, ensuring compliance with procedural fairness and legal principles in administrative actions affecting individual rights and interests.