2025 (2) TMI 147 - HC - Customs

G card licence viva voce examination ruled illegal under 2018 Regulation requirements

The Madras HC dismissed an appeal challenging a writ petition regarding G card licence entitlement. The respondent had failed the viva voce examination ... Entitlement to 'G' card licence - respondent/Writ Petitioner had failed in the viva voce - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, when the notification had not prescribed the procedure beyond the educational qualification and the written examination, conducting viva for the selected persons in the written examination conducted by the appellant is per se illegal. Even as per Clause-VI of the 2018 Regulation, the mode of examination do not contemplate for conducting viva. The 2018 Regulation stated supra governs the entire country. The appellant cannot pick and choose on their own method of conducting viva after written examination. The appellant had specifically implanted such a procedure to pick and choose the people, to whom they wish to be selected for grant of 'G' card licence. Clause 13 (5) and 13 (6) and 13 (7) of the 2018 Regulation clearly stated that the qualification for getting 'G' card holder is pass in the examination alone. In the absence of any proviso in the regulation for conducting viva, the viva conducted by the appellant is without jurisdiction and without any power conferred under the Regulation. There are no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Writ Court and in the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment include: Whether the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations-2018 permit the conducting of a viva voce examination for the issuance of a 'G' card license. Whether the presence of a pending criminal case against the respondent affects their eligibility for obtaining a 'G' card license under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations-2018. Whether the decision of the Writ Court to direct the issuance of a 'G' card license to the respondent was justified.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Legality of Conducting Viva Voce ExaminationRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations-2018, particularly Regulation 13, outlines the process for obtaining a 'G' card license. Regulation 13(5) specifies the qualifications required, which include passing an examination.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court interpreted the regulations to mean that the requirement for obtaining a 'G' card license is solely passing the written examination. The Court found no provision within the regulations that mandates or even allows for a viva voce examination as part of the qualification process.Key Evidence and Findings: The notification issued by the appellant did not prescribe a viva voce examination, and the 2018 Regulations did not include such a requirement. The Court found the introduction of a viva voce examination to be beyond the scope of the regulations.Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the regulations as they were written, concluding that the appellant's additional requirement of a viva voce examination was ultra vires, or beyond their legal authority.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant argued that the viva voce examination was necessary, but the Court dismissed this argument, emphasizing that the regulations did not support such a requirement.Conclusions: The Court concluded that conducting a viva voce examination was illegal and beyond the appellant's jurisdiction.2. Impact of Pending Criminal CaseRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Regulation 13(4) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations-2018 allows for consideration of a candidate's antecedents and character when granting approval for employment.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court considered the impact of the pending criminal case against the respondent. However, it noted that a final order had been passed in favor of the respondent's company in a related appeal, which mitigated concerns about the respondent's character.Key Evidence and Findings: The respondent's involvement in a criminal case was acknowledged, but the resolution of a related appeal in favor of the respondent's company was a significant factor.Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the regulation by considering the resolved appeal as mitigating the impact of the pending criminal case on the respondent's eligibility.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant emphasized the pending criminal case as a barrier, while the respondent highlighted the favorable appeal outcome. The Court sided with the respondent's interpretation.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the pending criminal case did not bar the issuance of a 'G' card license to the respondent.3. Justification of Writ Court's DecisionRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Writ Court's decision was based on its interpretation of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations-2018 and the facts presented.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court upheld the Writ Court's decision, agreeing that the regulations did not authorize a viva voce examination and that the respondent was otherwise eligible for the 'G' card license.Key Evidence and Findings: The Court found that the Writ Court correctly interpreted the regulations and considered all relevant facts, including the resolution of the related criminal appeal.Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the regulations and upheld the Writ Court's directive to issue the 'G' card license, given the respondent's eligibility.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant's arguments against the Writ Court's decision were found unpersuasive, as they were based on an unauthorized examination process.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the Writ Court's decision was justified and should be upheld.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Court stated, 'In the absence of any proviso in the regulation for conducting viva, the viva conducted by the appellant is without jurisdiction and without any power conferred under the Regulation.'Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforced the principle that regulatory bodies must operate within the bounds of their established regulations and cannot impose additional requirements not supported by the regulations.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court determined that the viva voce examination was unauthorized, the pending criminal case did not preclude the respondent's eligibility, and the Writ Court's decision to issue the 'G' card license was correct.