Union of India vs Suresh R. Yadav

Akil Kureshi, J.—Main matter, i.e. Special Civil Application No. 3984 of 2011 was disposed of by an order dated 11-4-2011. Respondent herein, original-petitioner, had approached this Court contending that his case is identical to the one decided by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6151 of 2010 by judgment dated 1-10-2010 Ravindra K. Joshi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, He should, therefore, get similar benefits. He has made an application dated 16-2-09 to the Department which may be decided. The case of the original petitioner was that by virtue of the said judgment dated 1-10-10 for grant/renewal of CHA licence, he does not have to take certain additional papers as insisted by the Department. The petition was disposed of in following terms :

Heard learned counsel Shri Chetan K. Pandya for the petitioner and Shri P.S. Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India on advance copy.

Petitioner claims benefit of judgment dated 1-10-2010 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6151 /2010 and connected matters. Case of the petitioner is that he is situated identically to those petitioner whose cases were allowed by this Court by the said judgment. Issue pertains to examination which department wishes to conduct for renewal of license for Custom House Agent. The petitioner claims to have passed such examination in past and contends that he should not be subjected to fresh examination in view of the said judgment dated 1-10-2010.

We do not propose to make any conclusive observation with respect to contention of the petitioner except for noting that if the petitioner''s case is identical to batch of cases decided by this Court by judgment dated 1-10-2010, in absence of any appeal or stay from the Appellate Court against the said judgment, department is bound to follow ratio laid down by the Bench in case of petitioner also. However, all these issues including question whether there are any factual differences and there are other ground on which the petitioner is not entitled to CHA license, can be gone into by the department.

At this stage, we direct the department to consider the application dated 16-2-2009 as at Annexure-C to the petition expeditiously and preferably within four weeks from date of receipt of copy of this order bearing in mind observations made above.

If ultimate decision that department takes aggrieves the petitioner, it would be open for him to challenge the same in accordance with law.

With above directions, the petition is disposed of.

Direct service permitted.

From the order itself, it can be clearly seen that we have not expressed any conclusive opinion with respect to the contention of the petitioner. We have also granted liberty to the Department to examine the factual aspects and to judge whether facts of the case of the respondent herein (petitioner in the main petition) are similar to those arising in SCA No. 6151 of 2010. We have also kept the option of the Department to seek stay from higher Court against the judgment dated 1-10-10.

In the present application, it is the grievance of the Department that such order was passed without hearing the Department and the same, therefore, may be recalled.

Though it is true that no formal notice was issued to the Department, we had the assistance of learned Asstt. Solicitor General appearing on advance copy. Nevertheless the order itself gives no specific direction to the Department to decide the application of the petitioner in any particular manner one way or the other. Department is left with full liberty to decide the question on the basis of the facts of the case. Since no order which can be stated to be adverse to the Department was passed, there is no reason to recall the said order. However, at the request of the learned counsel for the Department, time for complying with the direction is extended upto 30th June 2011.

With the above observations and clarification, the application is disposed of.