Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

Delhi High Court Orders Grant of Customs Brokers License, Citing "Principle of Equal Treatment"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court, in its judgment on Writ Petition (Civil) 2143/2023, directed the Directorate General of Performance Management and others to issue a Customs Brokers License to Mr. Keshav Kumar Thakur, the petitioner. The court, led by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad, emphasized the "principle of equal treatment" and extended the benefits of a previous judgment to Mr. Thakur without requiring him to approach the court again.

The case revolved around the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations – 2013 and the criteria for qualifying the written and oral examinations. Mr. Thakur had cleared the written examination with an impressive score of 61.5 marks but initially failed to pass the oral examination. However, he succeeded in his second attempt, securing 51 marks.

The pivotal contention in the case arose when the respondents refused to grant Customs Brokers Licenses to candidates scoring less than 60 marks in the oral examination, alleging a mid-way change in rules. Several other candidates, facing a similar predicament, had previously approached the court through writ petitions (W.P.(C) 12777/2019, W.P.(C) 12865/2019 & W.P.(C) 13132/2019). The court had already allowed these petitions, directing the respondents to issue licenses to the petitioners therein based on the "principle of equal treatment."

"When a citizen aggrieved by the action of a government department has approached the Court and obtained a declaration of law in his favour, others, in like circumstances, should be able to rely on the sense of responsibility of the department concerned and to expect that they will be given the benefit of this declaration without the need to take their grievances to court... Applying this principle to the present case, it was the duty of the Respondents to extend the benefit of the Order dated 18.02.2022 to the Petitioner herein without expecting that every candidate who has secured more than 50 marks in the oral examination must run to this Court to obtain a declaration in their favour."

In light of this principle, the court allowed Mr. Thakur's writ petition and directed the respondents to issue him the Customs Brokers License, taking into account the previous court order that had attained finality.

Date of Decision: 24th July, 2023

Keshav Kumar Thakur vs Directorate General Of Performance Management & Ors     

Latest Legal News