IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 36476 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.AJITH NARAYAN, 37,S/O.KRISHNAKUTTY, MUTTATHIL HOUSE, COCHIN-20.M/S.AJITH NARAYAN.M, WILLINGDON ISLAN, COCHIN-3. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL (SR.) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, COCHIN-3. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (I&B),CUSTOMS HOUSE, COCHIN-3. ADV. SRI.TOJAN J.VATHIKULAM,SC,C.B. EXCISE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).36476/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Customs House Agent having temporary licence and he has been holding the same from May, 2003. The grant of the licence is governed by statutory regulations, namely the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, framed under Section 146(2) of the Customs Act. Present regulations came into force on 23.2.2004. Clause 8 of the Regulations deals with the examination of the applicant. As per clause 8(3), it is necessary for the applicant to clear written as well as oral examinations separately. Irrespective of the number of chances in terms of clause 8(3), applicant has to clear the oral examination within two years of the related written examination and if he fails to do so, he shall be treated as having failed in the examination. As per clause 8(5), any person who holds a temporary licence granted under regulation 8 shall be allowed to pass the examination within a period of two years from the W.P.(C).36476/2008 2 date of commencement of the regulations ( Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984). Petitioner holds a temporary licence under the 1984 Regulations and since he was holding the said licence when the present 2004 regulations were brought into force, he is entitled to two years time to pass oral examination. But this is applicable only to a temporary licencee. Petitioner was subjected to oral examination four times, after he had passed his written examination which was held on 29.12.2006, the results thereof were published on 22.3.2007. 2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner Mr. Abraham Vakkanal submits that notwithstanding what is contained in clause 8(5), the petitioner’s application for a licence is eligible to be considered under clause 8(3) and this gives him two years time, irrespective of the number of the chances, to pass the oral examination. He further submits that though written examination was conducted on 29.12.2006, and he had passed the W.P.(C).36476/2008 3 same, results thereof was published on 22.3.2007 and the two year period for the purpose of clause 8(3) must be computed with reference to the date of publication of the results. Mr. Tojan Vathikulam, learned counsel for the respondents refutes the submission. 3. Having regard to the scheme of the regulations, and the fact that a benefit is sought to be granted, to an applicant to clear the oral examination within a time frame, irrespective of the number of chances, I am of the view, that the regulations must be construed in a manner which is beneficial to the applicant. If that be so, it would be appropriate that the two year period mentioned in clause 8(3) be construed with reference to the date of publication of the results. 4. Accordingly, respondents are directed to offer the petitioner another chance of oral examination on or before 22.3.2009 and if he passes the said examination, he must be treated as having been rendered eligible in W.P.(C).36476/2008 4 terms of clause 8(3) of the Regulations and further steps be taken pursuant thereto. Though learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a direction to continue the temporary licence, I am not inclined to issue a direction in that regard. But I make it clear that the cancellation of the temporary licence held by the petitioner, shall not be treated as a disability in considering him as an applicant, under clause 8(3) of the Regulations and subjecting him to the oral examination in the manner aforementioned. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs