(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2446 OF 2007 1.M/s.Gannon Dunkerley & ) Co.Ltd., A Company incorporated ) under Companies Act, 1956 ) having its office New ) Excelsior Building, 3rd Floor, ) A.K. Nayak Marg, Fort, ) Mumbai-400 001. ) 2.Mr. Ravi Prakash Agarawal of ) Mumbaui, Indian Inhabitant, ) residing at 1-A/13, Nalanda ) Co-operative Housing Society ) Limited, Evershine Nagar, ) Malad (West), Mumbai-400 064. )..PETITIONERS Versus 1.Union of India (through the ) Ministry of law, Justice and ) Company Affairs), through ) Central Government Advocates, ) 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, ) M.K. Road, Churchgate, ) Mumbai-400 020. ) 2.The Customs, excise & Sales ) (-2-) Tax Appellate Tribunal, West ) Zonal Bench, having its ) office at 4th and 5th Floor, ) 34, Jai Centre, P.D.Mello Road) Poon Street, Majid (E), ) Mumbai-400 009. ) 3.The Commissioner of Customs ) (General),New Customs House, ) Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001)..RESPONDENTS Mr. D.B. Shroff, Senior Counsel with Mr. Vinay Asarkar, Mr. Vinod Kothari and Mr. Ketan Dhulsunge i/b. Apex Law Partners for the Petitioners. Mr. A.S. Rao with Mrs. S.V. Bharucha, Ms. Rutuja Ambekar and Mr. H.P. Chaturvedi, for the Respondetns CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE,JJ. R.S.MOHITE,JJ. R.S.MOHITE,JJ. DATED: 11TH JANUARY,2008 DATED: 11TH JANUARY,2008 DATED: 11TH JANUARY,2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER F.I. REBELLO, J.) ORAL JUDGMENT (PER F.I. REBELLO, J.) ORAL JUDGMENT (PER F.I. REBELLO, J.) . Rule. Heard forthwith. In the instant case the petitioners have moved this Court seeking a mandamus against the Respondents more specifically Respondent No.3 to comply with the direction of the CESTAT which has allowed the Appeal filed by the petitioners herein. By a separate order passed today in Custom Appeal Lodging No.115 of 2007 we have dismissed the said Appeal. 2. In our opinion the reliefs as prayed really (-3-) cannot be granted as in the meantime the license period had expired on 31st December, 2006. However, we find that in terms of Regulations the petitioners have applied on October, 10, 2006 before the period of the license expired for renewal of the licence. The petitioners were informed by communication dated 26th March, 2007 that as the petitioners had not appointed qualified person within a period of two years as stipulated under Regulation 15(2) of CHALR 2004 the application to make the license operative has not been considered by the Commissioner of Customs (General). Though various letters are referred, reference is made to a letter dated 27th December, 2006 which was again an application for renewal. The only reason given for non-renewal is non-employing of qualified person for two years as understood by the respondents considering Regulation 15(2). 3. While disposing of the Custom Appeal Lodging No.115 of 2007 we have held that the proviso merely confers a discretion on the authorities therein, even if a qualified person is not available to permit the business house to carry on business if there is a person holding "G" card. The proviso does not lead to the conclusion that on the expiry of two years the license ceases and/or stands cancelled. The Tribunal in the Customs Appeal has (-4-) noted that the petitioners were carrying on business for the last over 42 years and there is nothing adverse against them. Under these circumstances in our opinion considering Regulation 11 the Respondents could have only considered the Application for renewal in terms of what is set out in Regulation 11(2). The reasons given for non-renewal, therefore, in our opinion are contrary to the provisions of the Regulations itself. 4. The only question in the instant case is whether we should remit the matter back to the respondents to reconsider the same. The petitioners herein right from September, 2006 have been applying that they be permitted to operate their license. The Appeal preferred by them before the Tribunal was allowed. The Appeal preferred by the Revenue before this Court has been dismissed. We asked the learned Counsel for the respondents if there be anything adverse against the petitioners herein. We are informed, on instructions, that there is nothing adverse against the petitioners. In these circumstances in our opinion the ends of justice would require that the respondents be directed to renew the license as applied for by the petitioners herein. Considering the above though prayer clause as prayed in terms of prayer clause (a) cannot be granted, we direct the respondents to forthwith (-5-) renew the license of the petitioners and permit them to carry on their business after complying other requirements, if any. 4. In the result Rule made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)