Customs broker licensing and notified prohibition: business may continue until statutory notification, and delay did not bar Article 226 relief.

Section 202 of the Sea Customs Act did not prevent customs authorities from limiting a custom house broker's licence to a fixed term and requiring renewal; the view that such a licence was permanent was rejected. After amendment, the prohibition on acting as a custom house agent arose only from the notified date under section 202(1), so until that notification was issued the petitioner could continue business and the customs direction restricting that right lacked validity. Delay was not treated as fatal under Article 226 where the grievance involved a continuing infringement of the right to carry on business, and the laches objection was overruled.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the duration of a custom house broker's licence under section 202 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 could be fixed for a limited period and renewed from time to time; (ii) whether the petitioner had a right to carry on business as a custom house broker without a licence until the statutory notification under section 202(1) was issued; (iii) whether delay barred relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where the complaint involved infringement of a fundamental right.

Issue (i): Whether the duration of a custom house broker's licence under section 202 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 could be fixed for a limited period and renewed from time to time.

Analysis: Section 202 contained nothing prohibiting the authority from determining the period for which a licence would operate. The cancellation clause for misbehaviour was treated as an enabling provision and not as one excluding the power to grant licences for a limited duration. The rule-making and executive arrangements made by the customs authorities, limiting licences to fixed periods, were therefore treated as permissible.

Conclusion: The contention that the licence was permanent and needed no renewal was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner had a right to carry on business as a custom house broker without a licence until the statutory notification under section 202(1) was issued.

Analysis: After amendment, section 202(1) contemplated that the prohibition against acting as a custom house agent would arise only after a notified date. As the required notification had not yet been made, the statutory restriction had not come into force. The petitioner was therefore entitled to continue his business, and the direction issued by the customs authorities restricting that right was held to lack validity. Relief compelling renewal or return of the licence was, however, not available.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to carry on business as a custom house broker until the requisite notification was made, but was not entitled to renewal or return of the licence.

Issue (iii): Whether delay barred relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where the complaint involved infringement of a fundamental right.

Analysis: The complaint was treated as one involving continuing interference with the petitioner's right to carry on business. In that setting, delay in approaching the Court was not treated as fatal, and the discretionary bar based on laches was held not to apply rigidly where a fundamental right was affected.

Conclusion: The objection based on delay was overruled.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded only to the extent of preserving the petitioner's right to continue his business until lawful prohibition came into force, while the prayer for renewal or return of the licence was refused.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory prohibition on business is contingent upon a future notified date, the right to continue the business survives until that notification is issued, and delay will not ordinarily defeat relief under Article 226 when the grievance is a continuing infringement of a fundamental right.

---