2022 (2) TMI 1082

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2. The petitioner was granted Custom House Agent License bearing CHA No. 11/970. It was the case of the respondents that the petitioner had illegally sub-let its CHA license which required further investigation. On 11th May, 2009, the respondents ordered suspension of operation of its license with immediate effect. On 2nd July, 2009, the respondent no.2 revoked the suspension and ordered an inquiry against the petitioner. 3. On 12th August, 2009, a notice came to be served upon the petitioner by the Inquiry Officer directing the petitioner to submit a written statement. On 1st October, 2009, the petitioner's advocate requested the respondent no.3 to supply certain documents to enable the petitioner to file a reply to the Articles of Charge....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d 2nd July, 2009 and prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to withdraw the order dated 2nd July, 2009 to the extent that the regular inquiry under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004 be held due to inordinate delay of almost 13 years. 7. Dr. Kantawala, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the documents annexed to the petition and would submit that the suspension order against the petitioner was already revoked, however with a direction to conduct regular inquiry against the petitioner. Due to the reasons attributable on the part of the respondents, the earlier Inquiry Officer appointed by the respondent was replaced by new Inquiry Officer. The new Inquiry Officer also could not conduct inquiry for seve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fficer is ready and willing to complete the inquiry expeditiously as may be granted by this Court. He submits that there are no malafides alleged by the petitioner against the Inquiry Officer for not conducting the proceedings for sometime due to administrative reasons. REASONS AND CONCLUSION :- 12. It is not in dispute that the license of the petitioner was suspended by order dated 11th May, 2009 and was revoked by order dated 2nd July, 2009. The respondent no.2, however had ordered an Inquiry against the petitioner by the said 2nd July, 2009. In the year 2009, the petitioner itself was served with a notice to submit a written statement. 13. A perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner has repeatedly called upon the respondent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of time. In view of the gross delay on the part of the respondent, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. 16. In this case, the record indicates that since 2009 when the regular inquiry was ordered by the Commissioner, hardly any steps are taken by the respondents to proceed with the regular inquiry ordered by the Commissioner. The petitioner had repeatedly called upon the respondents to produce the documents. Neither any documents were produced till 1st July, 2021 nor any regular date of hearing was conveyed to the petitioner except once. In these circumstances, in our view, the petitioner was not expected to preserve the evidence/record intact for such a long period of more than 11 years. 17. We are not inclined to accept the submissi....