{"id":1581,"date":"2009-04-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/having-office-at-vs-the-union-of-india-on-29-april-2009-2"},"modified":"2018-08-12T12:07:46","modified_gmt":"2018-08-12T06:37:46","slug":"having-office-at-vs-the-union-of-india-on-29-april-2009-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/having-office-at-vs-the-union-of-india-on-29-april-2009-2","title":{"rendered":"Having Office At vs The Union Of India on 29 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Having Office At vs The Union Of India on 29 April, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: F.I. Rebello, J. H. Bhatia<\/div>\n
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                    CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n              WRIT PETITION NO.2700 OF 2009\n\n    A.S.Vasan & Sons (Bombay)\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  \n    A Partnership Firm,\n    Through its partner-\n    Mrs.Bindu Unnikrishnan\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n    Having office at\n    610, Arenja Corner, Sector-17,\n    Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 705               ....Petitioner.\n    v.\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n    1.The Union of India\n      Through Central Govt. Advocates,\n      Dedicated Legal Cell,\n      New Custom House,\n      Ballard Estate,\n\n\n\n\n                                 \n      Mumbai 400 001.\n\n    2. Chief Commissioner of Customs\n                    \n       Mumbai-I, New Custom House,\n       Ballard Estate,\n       Mumbai- 400 038\n                   \n    3. Commissioner of Customs (G)\n       New Custom House,\n       Ballard Estate,\n       Mumbai 400 038\n\n    4. Customs & Excise, Service Tax\n      \n\n\n       Appellate Tribunal\n       Through Asstt. Registrar,\n   \n\n\n\n       3rd, 4th & 5th Floor, Jai Centre,\n       34, P.D'Mello Road,\n       Masjid (East), Mumbai           ...Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n\n    Mr.Sujay N.    Katawala   with Mr.Brijesh Pathak              and\n    Mr.U.P.Warunjikar advs.   for the Appellant.\n\n    Mr.P.S.Jetly   with   Mr.R.Kumar     advs.          for       the\n    Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n\n                              CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &\n                                      J.H.BHATIA,\n                                      J.H.BHATIA JJ.\n                              DATE : 29th April, 2009.\n\n\n    JUDGMENT :\n<\/pre>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:46 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                    [ 2 ]<\/p>\n
    1.      Rule. By consent heard forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
    2.      Petitioner     was    Licensed    Customs       House        Agent<\/p>\n
    (CHA).     The   CHA    Licence    No.11\/483       issued        to     the<\/p>\n
    petitioner     expired on 31.12.2007.          Petitioner applied<\/p>\n
    for    renewal   of    the    said licence      within        the     time<\/p>\n
    prescribed.      As    the application for renewal was                  not<\/p>\n
    being    decided,     the    petitioner filed        Writ      Petition<\/p>\n
    No.310    of 2008 which came to be disposed off by order<\/p>\n
    dated    January 25, 2008 pursuant to statement made                      on<\/p>\n
    behalf    of   the<\/p>\n
                          respondents       that    the<\/p>\n
    renewal application would be decided within two weeks.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            petitioner’s<\/p>\n
    3.      Petitioner     earlier    had    made    representations,<\/p>\n
    which    were received in the office of the               respondents<\/p>\n
    on 31.12.2007.       In the representation dated 28.12.2007<\/p>\n
    after    setting out various contentions, petitioner had<\/p>\n
    set    out as under;     “In case any further clarification<\/p>\n
    is    essential, we may please be heard”.             Subsequent to<\/p>\n
    the    order passed by this Court in writ petition,                     the<\/p>\n
    respondent     no.3    passed an order that the licence                   is<\/p>\n
    not    to be renewed beyond 31.12.2007 and              accordingly,<\/p>\n
    their application in this regard is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
    4.      Petitioner aggrieved by that order, preferred an<\/p>\n
    appeal before the Chief Commissioner of Customs.                      That<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                       [ 3 ]<\/p>\n
    came    to    be    disposed       off    by    communication             dated<\/p>\n
    19.8.2008      whereby the petitioners were informed                       that<\/p>\n
    there    is    no    statutory provision under               the      Customs<\/p>\n
    House    Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 (Hereinafter<\/p>\n
    referred      to    as ‘Regulations’) for filing an                   appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    Petitioner        was informed that accordingly, the                    matter<\/p>\n
    was    referred      to    the     Competent      Authority,              i.e.,<\/p>\n
    Commissioner        of    Customs    (G).      Petitioner          had     also<\/p>\n
    preferred an appeal before the Tribunal (CESTAT).                            The<\/p>\n
    Tribunal      by    its order held that the order passed                       by<\/p>\n
    the    Commissioner        rejecting      renewal       of     licence         is<\/p>\n
    administrative<\/p>\n
    order
\n                          in
\n                              ignature    and not a<\/p>\n
             against which an appeal is maintainable
\n                                                            quasi       judicial<\/p>\n
                                                                            before<\/p>\n
    the    Tribunal      and accordingly, dismissed the                   appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    Petitioners        have thereafter come before this Court by<\/p>\n
    way    of    writ    petition      impugning the          order       of     the<\/p>\n
    Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n
    5.      In the first instance, it is submitted on behalf<\/p>\n
    of    the petitioners by the learned counsel that                         under<\/p>\n
    the    Regulations,        an    appeal    would      be     maintainable<\/p>\n
    before      the    Chief    Commissioner        of    Customs         or       in<\/p>\n
    alternative,        an appeal considering the provisions                       of<\/p>\n
    Regulation 22(8) could be filed before the CESTAT.                             It<\/p>\n
    is    submitted that the application for renewal for all<\/p>\n
    purposes      is    a fresh application and accordingly,                       an<\/p>\n
    appeal would lie.          Reliance was placed on the judgment<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                        [ 4 ]<\/p>\n
    of     the Supreme Court in Falcon Air Cargo and                      Travels<\/p>\n
    (P)    Ltd.      v.    Union of India<\/span><\/a>         2002(140)          E.L.T.          8<\/p>\n
    (Del.).\n<\/p>\n
    (Del.)          Delhi High Court has noted that                non-renewal<\/p>\n
    and    revocations         are    conceptually    and        contextually<\/p>\n
    different.         It held that “revocation” is the                   calling<\/p>\n
    back    of a thing granted or destroying or making                         void<\/p>\n
    of    some      deed   that      had existence, and          the      act      of<\/p>\n
    revocation made it void.             Renewal of a licence means a<\/p>\n
    new    licence      granted by such act.         Its effect             is     to<\/p>\n
    prevent      discontinuance or forfeiture.                Renewal         comes<\/p>\n
    at    a stage when the period of currency of the licence<\/p>\n
    and    Others v.\n<\/p>\n
    is over and its validity is extended.                   In Gajraj Singh<\/p>\n
                           State Transport Appellate Tribunal and<\/p>\n
    Others     (1997) 1 Supreme Court Cases 650,
\n                                            650 the                       Supreme<\/p>\n
    Court      in    the case under the Motor Vehicles                  Act      has<\/p>\n
    been pleased to hold that the renewal of licence means<\/p>\n
    a    new    licence     granted by way of renewal.                  It     was,<\/p>\n
    therefore, sought to be contended that application for<\/p>\n
    renewal      being     a    fresh application         and      considering<\/p>\n
    Regulation 9(4), an appeal would lie.\n<\/p>\n
    6.      Let us, therefore, consider whether an appeal is<\/p>\n
    maintenable.        Under Regulation 5, an application for a<\/p>\n
    licence      to act as a Customs House Agent in a                     Customs<\/p>\n
    Station shall be made in Form A and shall, inter alia,<\/p>\n
    contain      the    name     and    the    address      of     the      person<\/p>\n
    applying and the other particulars as set out therein.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:46 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                               [ 5 ]<\/p>\n
    Regulation   9   deals with grant of licence in Form             B.\n<\/p>\n
    Regulation 9(3) reads as under;\n<\/p>\n
          “9(3) The Commissioner of Customs may reject an
\n          application for the grant of licence to act as<\/p>\n
          Customs House Agent if the applicant is involved
\n          in fraud or forgery, or any criminal proceedings
\n          are pending before any court of law against him
\n          or he has been convicted in any court of law.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Regulation 9(4) is relevant. It reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
          “9(4) Any applicant aggrieved by the order of
\n          the    Commissioner of   Customs passed    under<\/p>\n
          sub-regulation (3) may appeal to the Chief
\n          Commissioner of Customs or Chief Commissioner of
\n          Customs and Central Excise, as the case may be,
\n          within    a period of    thirty days from the<\/p>\n
          communication of such order.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    .     Other relevant Regulation is Regulation 11 which<\/p>\n
    reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
         “11.   Period of validity of a licence.-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                         licence. (1)                 A\n         licence granted under regulation 9 shall                    be\n         valid for a period of ten years from the date               of\n\n\n\n\n\n         issue and shall be renewed from time to time                in\n         accordance   with the    procedure provided                 in\n         sub-regulation (2).\n\n         (2)   The Commissioner of     Customs may,    on\n<\/pre>\n
         application made by the licensee before the<\/p>\n
         expiry of the validity of the licence under
\n         sub-regulation (1), renew the licence for a
\n         further period of ten years from the date of
\n         expiration of the original licence granted under
\n         regulation 9 or of the last renewal of such
\n         licence, as the case may be, if the performance
\n         of the licensee is found to be satisfactory with
\n         reference, inter alia, to the following:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:46 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                       [ 6 ]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (a) quantity or value of cargo cleared by such
\n            licensee conforming to norms as may be specified
\n            by the Commissioner;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (b) absence of instances of any complaints                         of<\/p>\n
            misconduct including non-compliance of any                         of
\n            the obligations specified in regulation 13.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (3)   The   fee for    renewal of    a                    licence
\n            sub-regulation (2) shall be Rs.5,000\/-.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    7.      If    we read Regulation 9 with Regulation 11                    and<\/p>\n
    even    if    an application for renewal is treated                   as     a<\/p>\n
    fresh    licence, the Regulations permitted appeal                     only<\/p>\n
    where    an    application        is rejected    under       Regulation<\/p>\n
    9(3).\n<\/p>\n
    under    Regulation<\/p>\n
              Regulation 11 does not so provide.\n<\/p>\n
                               9, the Commissioner of Customs
\n                                                                   Secondly,<\/p>\n
                                                                             may<\/p>\n
    reject    an application for the grant of licence to act<\/p>\n
    as Customs House Agent if the applicant is involved in<\/p>\n
    fraud    or    forgery,      or any criminal      proceedings            are<\/p>\n
    pending      before any court of law against him or he has<\/p>\n
    been    convicted      in    any    court of    law.       These       are,<\/p>\n
    therefore,      the considerations for the grant of a                    new<\/p>\n
    licence      based    on    the     first   application         for      CHA<\/p>\n
    licence.\n<\/p>\n
    8.      On the other hand, so far as Regulation 11(2) is<\/p>\n
    concerned,       it    provides      for    renewal        and        while<\/p>\n
    considering      renewal, what has to be considered is, if<\/p>\n
    the    performance      of    the    licensee    is    found        to     be<\/p>\n
    satisfactory      in terms set out under Regulation 11(2).\n<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:46 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                        [ 7 ]<\/p>\n
    These    are the requirements after the licence has been<\/p>\n
    granted.         Application       for grant of licence             and      for<\/p>\n
    revocation of that licence are distinct and different.\n<\/p>\n
    No    appeal      is provided under Section 11               whereas,          an<\/p>\n
    appeal      is    provided       under Regulation 9(4)             in     those<\/p>\n
    cases,      where       an application for licence is               rejected<\/p>\n
    under    regulation 9(3).              We are, therefore, clearly of<\/p>\n
    the    opinion that no appeal lies against the order                           of<\/p>\n
    the Commissioner rejecting an application for renewal.\n<\/p>\n
    It    may    be    mentioned that in case of              Customs         House<\/p>\n
    Agent    licence,         our    attention     was    invited         to     the<\/p>\n
    judgment<\/p>\n
                  of Calcutta High Court in M.Dutta Agency<\/p>\n
    Commissioner of Customs 1998 (101) E.L.T.                      581 (Cal.).\n<\/p>\n
                                                                       (Cal.)
\n                                                                                   v.\n<\/p>\n
    It    was contended before Calcutta High Court that                          the<\/p>\n
    appeal      would       lie     against the refusal to           renew       CHA<\/p>\n
    licence.           Considering          the    language      of         Section<\/p>\n
    129A(1)(a)         of    Customs Act, 1962, the           learned          Judge<\/p>\n
    held that an appeal is provided against the suspension<\/p>\n
    or    revocation         but     not    for   refusal     to     renew       CHA<\/p>\n
    licence.         We are clearly of the opinion that no appeal<\/p>\n
    lies     against        the order rejecting an application                   for<\/p>\n
    renewal.         In absence of any other remedy it is open to<\/p>\n
    this     Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction<\/p>\n
    in case where an application for renewal is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
    9.       Having      so said, the next question before us                      is<\/p>\n
    whether      the impugned order is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:46 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     [ 8 ]<\/p>\n
    Apart    from    various      challenges   made,        the      learned<\/p>\n
    counsel for the petitioners has submitted as under:\n<\/p>\n
            1.   That the order was passed without giving an<\/p>\n
            opportunity to the     petitioners.    The order
\n            visits petitioner with     civil    consequences.
\n            Once, that is the case, the order is violative<\/p>\n
            of principles of natural justice and fair play
\n            and the impugned order is liable to be set
\n            aside;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            2.   It is further submitted that the learned<\/p>\n
            Commissioner while considering the application
\n            for renewal placed reliance on the original
\n            order passed against Mr.Unnikrishnan, who was
\n            partner of the petitioner firm. Our attention
\n            is   invited to the      order  passed   against<\/p>\n
            Unnikrishnan which was thereafter set aside by
\n            the Tribunal and consequently, the order of the
\n            learned     Commissioner        suffers     from<\/p>\n
            non-application of mind. On this count also, it
\n            is submitted that the order should be set aside.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    .       On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents,<\/p>\n
    the learned counsel submits that there is no statutory<\/p>\n
    right    to    be heard under the Regulation and in                  those<\/p>\n
    cases,    where      a party has to be heard in person,                 the<\/p>\n
    Regulations      have    so    provided.   It      is,      therefore,<\/p>\n
    submitted that the question of giving personal hearing<\/p>\n
    would    not    arise    in    the   matter.       It     is     further<\/p>\n
    submitted      that the order passed against            Unnikrishnan<\/p>\n
    was in respect of penal proceedings.             Unnikrishnan was<\/p>\n
    a   partner     of    the petitioner’s firm.          Mere       setting<\/p>\n
    aside of the order against Unnikrishnan would be of no<\/p>\n
    consequence as it was in penal proceedings whereas, in<\/p>\n
    the   instant     case,    what is being considered              was      an<\/p>\n
    application for renewal.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:46 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                       [ 9 ]<\/p>\n
    10.     We    have      heard    the    learned     counsel          for      the<\/p>\n
    Parties.       In      the    first instance, there             can      be     no<\/p>\n
    dispute      that      the    order    rejecting       application            has<\/p>\n
    visited      the petitioner with civil consequences.                        In a<\/p>\n
    case    where      an order whether it be administrative                        or<\/p>\n
    quasi       judicial,         visits    the     party         with         civil<\/p>\n
    consequences        in    absence of any        statutory           exclusion<\/p>\n
    under    the      Regulations, there would be a right                      to     a<\/p>\n
    hearing.       The right to hearing would include right to<\/p>\n
    a    person    being heard in person if such a request                          is<\/p>\n
    made.\n<\/p>\n
    petitioner        in<\/p>\n
                In the instant case, we may point out that the<\/p>\n
                            representation        dated      28.12.2007           had<\/p>\n
    sought      for    hearing      in    the    circumstances           set      out<\/p>\n
    therein.      Merely because the regulation expressly does<\/p>\n
    not    provide      for a hearing, would not mean                   that      the<\/p>\n
    petitioner should not be given a hearing.                       This is all<\/p>\n
    more    so    considering        that the      respondent           no.3      has<\/p>\n
    relied       on    the    original      order      in      the      case        of<\/p>\n
    Unnikrishnan,          thus,    denying      the petitioner            a    fair<\/p>\n
    opportunity         of       explaining      why       the        order         in<\/p>\n
    Unnikrishnan        ought      not    to be    considered.             In     our<\/p>\n
    opinion,      therefore, as no notice of hearing was given<\/p>\n
    to    the    petitioners        by     the    respondent          no.3,       the<\/p>\n
    impugned order is liable to be set aside on that count<\/p>\n
    alone.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:46 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                        [ 10 ]<\/p>\n
    11.     Considering          the arguments in the instant                 case,<\/p>\n
    we    find      that    the Tribunal has relied on               the      order<\/p>\n
    passed       against        C.R.Unnikrishnan       and       has        quoted<\/p>\n
    extensively        from the said order.          After quoting             from<\/p>\n
    the    said order, the learned Commissioner proceeded on<\/p>\n
    the footings that Unnikrishnan as a partner of the CHA<\/p>\n
    firm was involved in the export fraud.                    Admittedly, in<\/p>\n
    proceedings taken out by Unnikrishnan against the said<\/p>\n
    order,      it    was      set   aside.   Once    the      Tribunal          has<\/p>\n
    proceeded        to    rely upon an order which was set                   aside<\/p>\n
    that    by itself would disclose non-application of mind<\/p>\n
    or     relying<\/p>\n
    irrespective
\n                           on<\/p>\n
                          of<\/p>\n
                                 irrelevant       matrial.\n<\/p>\n
                                the fact that whether the
\n                                                                       This<\/p>\n
                                                                       order
\n                                                                                   is<\/p>\n
                                                                                   in<\/p>\n
    Unnikrishnan          was in respect of the penal              proceedings<\/p>\n
    or    not.       Considering       that irrelevant         material          was<\/p>\n
    considered,        it      would   vitiate     the      order       much       as<\/p>\n
    considering        extraneous material.          On this count also,<\/p>\n
    therefore,        the      impugned    order is liable to             be     set<\/p>\n
    aside.\n<\/p>\n
    12.     On behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel<\/p>\n
    sought      to contend that considering paragraph 1 of the<\/p>\n
    order      of    the learned Commissioner and the very                     fact<\/p>\n
    that no hearing was given to them, the respondent no.3<\/p>\n
    ought      not to hear the matter.           In our opinion,              there<\/p>\n
    is    no    material        before    us warranting        an      order       to<\/p>\n
    transfer        the proceedings from the respondent no.3                       to<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                      [ 11 ]<\/p>\n
    any other authority.         Merely because some observations<\/p>\n
    are    passed cannot result in holding that authority is<\/p>\n
    biased    and     against the petitioner.         We,      therefore,<\/p>\n
    decline to transfer the proceeding.\n<\/p>\n
    13.     We make it clear that the respondent no.3 before<\/p>\n
    proceeding      to hear and dispose off the matter to give<\/p>\n
    an    opportunity       to the petitioner as they had             sought<\/p>\n
    such    an   opportunity and be uninfluenced by what                   has<\/p>\n
    been    stated     in    the earlier order.     With       the      above<\/p>\n
    observations, present petition can be disposed off.\n<\/p>\n
    14.     In     those\n                            \n                             circumstances,      petition        is      made\n                           \n    absolute     in    terms    of    prayer   clause    (a)(1).           The\n\n    respondent      no.3     to dispose off the appeal not              later\n\n    than 12 weeks from today.\n      \n   \n\n\n\n    15.     Rule    made absolute accordingly.          No order as to\n\n    costs.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n         ( J.H.BHATIA, J.)                       ( F.I.REBELLO, J.)\n\n\n\n\n                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:33:46 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Having Office At vs The Union Of India on 29 April, 2009 Bench: F.I. Rebello, J. H. Bhatia IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2700 OF 2009 A.S.Vasan & Sons (Bombay) A Partnership Firm, Through its partner- Mrs.Bindu Unnikrishnan Having office at 610, Arenja Corner, Sector-17, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1581","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHaving Office At vs The Union Of India on 29 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/having-office-at-vs-the-union-of-india-on-29-april-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Having Office At vs The Union Of India on 29 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/having-office-at-vs-the-union-of-india-on-29-april-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-12T06:37:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/having-office-at-vs-the-union-of-india-on-29-april-2009-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/having-office-at-vs-the-union-of-india-on-29-april-2009-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Having Office At vs The Union Of India on 29 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-12T06:37:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/having-office-at-vs-the-union-of-india-on-29-april-2009-2\"},\"wordCount\":2039,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/having-office-at-vs-the-union-of-india-on-29-april-2009-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/having-office-at-vs-the-union-of-india-on-29-april-2009-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/having-office-at-vs-the-union-of-india-on-29-april-2009-2\",\"name\":\"Having Office At vs The Union Of India on 29 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-12T06:37:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/having-office-at-vs-the-union-of-india-on-29-april-2009-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/having-office-at-vs-the-union-of-india-on-29-april-2009-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/having-office-at-vs-the-union-of-india-on-29-april-2009-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Having Office At vs The Union Of India on 29 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Having Office At vs The Union Of India on 29 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/having-office-at-vs-the-union-of-india-on-29-april-2009-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Having Office At vs The Union Of India on 29 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/having-office-at-vs-the-union-of-india-on-29-april-2009-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-12T06:37:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/having-office-at-vs-the-union-of-india-on-29-april-2009-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/having-office-at-vs-the-union-of-india-on-29-april-2009-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Having Office At vs The Union Of India on 29 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-12T06:37:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/having-office-at-vs-the-union-of-india-on-29-april-2009-2"},"wordCount":2039,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/having-office-at-vs-the-union-of-india-on-29-april-2009-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/having-office-at-vs-the-union-of-india-on-29-april-2009-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/having-office-at-vs-the-union-of-india-on-29-april-2009-2","name":"Having Office At vs The Union Of India on 29 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-12T06:37:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/having-office-at-vs-the-union-of-india-on-29-april-2009-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/having-office-at-vs-the-union-of-india-on-29-april-2009-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/having-office-at-vs-the-union-of-india-on-29-april-2009-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Having Office At vs The Union Of India on 29 April, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1581","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1581"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1581\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1581"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1581"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1581"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}