High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Time Rich Shipping Pvt Limited vs The Secretary Ministry Of Finance on 22 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
M/S Time Rich Shipping Pvt Limited vs The Secretary Ministry Of Finance on 22 August, 2008
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
m THE HIGH coum OF KARNATAKA AT BANGA-Qf)RI4&~'_'V1'---::_ :  

DATED THIS THE 22"" MY 0:: g.u(;usT,~2*:;m§4_vV   4-

BEFORE

THE HQWBLE MR. JUSTICE A.N."\V(E-!§{UGV(2)P.§LL.9g eawp.«%% 1 i

WRIT PE'I'ITI€')N N0. 4:71:;>[2Ls;it11:a-.(Gs'»14'r<-35;)' 
BETWEEN: V  é 1. 

Mis. Time Rich Ships:-ing Py'i:.",- i.,td.,* _  v_ A " -
Nc.85, MES Coio;1y';««.Ij{AL Post,     '
Konena Agraha.:'a,  ~ V _  "
3angalore~55€1 O1-'}"V._  ' .  
Representve:1Tby~Mafaaging, 'Directqr. 
      Petitioner

(By 551. MERC: Ravi, ) I  %

AND :

 Trgésecrezarv,  of Finance,

. Eepartrnfintaf Revenue,

  'Govt... :<::cfA1s£t':":.a," .

% ~N'ew iieih; 

«2. Trié Ceh'im'i'Ssioner of Customs,

V   "3angai'ore-S60 O01.

 Custiams House, Queens Road,

 Respondents

. Sri. Y. Hariprasad, CGC, for R1 and R2)

This writ: petition is mad under Articie 226 of the

u U Cc-nstituticm of India praying to dérect R2 ta consider and

dispose of the application dated 13.3.2006 filed by the

petitioner herein for grant of CHA Licence _

frame as may be deemed fit by this Hon’bfe.§o=n_rt. ‘

This petition coming on for:=preiirninary’:

group, this day, the Court made th’e_fa!Sowings~:_V% -. _ _ ‘
0 R’ ‘i ii i

According to tn:e..V.petitioner–, °it__ is.’ca*rryin{; on the
freight forwarding busigness operating
and processi.r:«:;i..:V area and in
custom is be given a iicence
in terms’ Aeen’ts Licensing Reguiations,
2004:”(ftfie The 2″‘ respondent had

issued axpiuébivicp in-otiiaeriiateci 2.3.2036 inviting applications

A feziftgraiat pf iicence__to act as custom house agent, in terms

‘ .-‘oi’?trie_’afo«resaid regulation. The iast date for submitting

“tn’e’ appiications was 20.3.2006. The petitioner has

susmieaatise appiication dated 13.3.2606 enciosing certain

2 docurnents. Since it did not hear anything from the 2″”

Atirespondent, aiieging inaction on the part of the 2*”

‘ respondent and stating that its Business interest has been

restricted and curtailed, it has filed this writ petition to

z

direct the 2″‘ respondent to consider and dispose’ the

application dated 13.3.2005 of the aetittimetr.fcaf%ng.ra–nt…iof._».{if

customs house agent licence. . _

2. Notice of this writ on
25.3.2008. Respondent2;;..fi”eve fiapgzearantcetvvthrouo
counsei. Respondents of
objections.

3. on both sida and perused
the record. =.. » A L4 V

4;.’ ‘There V-éstno ciisoute that the petitioner has

‘Vi.__ei1i:nfiitte<i""'i:heAappiication dated 13.3.2906. when the

oetitionVer*v:.'fiae Vseifimitted the appiication along with the

Z _required gal-ticaiars, it was incumbent on the part of the

"":?".'A"–:zV"""..tesoonclent who had issued a public notice dated

§.3.'2oé6 inviting the appiications, to consider the

'amfiication and take a decision thereon. There is no

'material placed on record, in justification of the inaction on

the part of the 2"' respondent. Learned cckonsei for the

K

respondents is unabie to state, why the said application cf
the petitioner was not disposed of, even though_4..than

two years has elapsed.

S. In the circumstances,V”é»’V”””respondefitée”t§«efe’by»1′. A’

directed ta consider the applicatienldeted iv,3€.A3;2D0n6’g e§:Vt?se

petitioner and communicaté*ve«f§*ethe .pet§i:i’o:ié2r;’V”tfvie”decisieh

taken in the matter. before.’3f).’i.ij’..2bQ_8.

Writ peutien stane§”¢isp§see”vpfecébrdingly.

.4′