Customs house agents licensing compliance: refusal to approve manager upheld where qualification and approval requirements were not met.

Regulation 9 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 required at least one partner to pass the prescribed examination within the stipulated period before a regular licence could be granted, and Regulation 20(2) required prior approval for appointment of a person to assist the licensee after consideration of antecedents and character. On the facts, no partner qualified in time and the claimed manager appointment was not satisfactorily established. The refusal to approve the appointment was therefore not shown to be arbitrary or illegal, and writ interference under Article 226 was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference under Article 226 was warranted against the refusal to approve the petitioners' manager and the resulting cancellation of the customs house agents licence for non-compliance with the licensing regulations.

Analysis: Regulation 9 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 required at least one partner to qualify in the prescribed examination within the stipulated period before a regular licence could be granted. Regulation 20(2) required prior approval of the designated customs authority for appointment of a person to assist the licensee, and such approval depended upon consideration of the person's antecedents and character. On the facts, none of the partners had qualified within time, the claimed appointment of the manager was not satisfactorily established, and the materials placed before the Court did not inspire confidence. The refusal to grant approval was therefore not shown to be arbitrary or illegal.

Conclusion: The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and upheld the refusal to interfere, against the petitioners.

---