1. ZULFIQAR AHMAD KHAN, J. 1,2&4. This order will decide these three pending applications. Through C.M.A. No.5840 of 2020, a request is made under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., that the defendants be restrained from interference and/or obstructing in-bonding and ex-bonding. activities of the Plaintiff at the Plot of land belonging to the plaintiff. By second CMA bearing No.6275 of 2020 moved under Sections 94 and 151, C.P.C., the plaintiff has prayed that "the defendants be restrained from interfering with and/or in any manner obstructing discharge of in- bonding undertakings". The application bearing C.M.A. No.12584 of 2020 seeks contempt action against the defendants who allegedly have violated orders passed by this Court on 23.07.2020 and 04.08.2021 where it was held that "no coercive action be taken against the plaintiff" and "defendant No.2 not to take any coercive action against the business of the plaintiff" respectively. Background of the case; as narrated by the learned counsel for the Plaintiff and as gathered from perusal of the file is that the Plaintiff was granted a Warehouse License under Customs Rules which license remained in operation after having been revived/revalidated till 31st January 2020 as evident from page-53 of the file. It appears that certain violations took place at the said Warehouse which resulted in issuance of the letter dated 16.07.2018 (page 61) titled "Notice of Suspension of Warehousing License under Section 12(4) of the Customs Act and Rule A 345 of the Customs Rules, 2001" to the plaintiff. Against issuance of the said letter, the petitioner moved to this Court through C.P. No.D-877 of 2019 (annexure P5) and sought an injunctive relief of restoration of the license which was so restored by defendant's letter dated 07.10.2019 (page 231). The said Constitutional petition was eventually decided by this Court's order dated 06.09.2019 (page 97) by holding that suspension of the license through letter dated 16.07.2018 was illegal and without lawful authority, however, permitting the defendants to proceed against the Plaintiff in accordance with law, however, before taking any action of suspension, a Show-Cause Notice in terms of Section 12(4) of the Customs Act and Rule 354(2) of the Customs Rules be issued, which resulted in issuance of Show Cause Notice dated 08.10.2019 (page 223) detailing out irregularities committed at the Warehouse fixing C 15.10.2019 as date of hearing of the said matter with the Licensing Authority. It is also an admitted fact that against issuance of the said Show-Cause Notice, the Plaintiff moved to this Court again by filing Constitutional Petition No. D-1687/2020 on 07.03.2020. On the newly filed petition, by order dated 09.03.2020 (page 131), while the Plaintiff was directed to file a response to the Show-Cause Notice, the defendants were directed not to take any coercive action against the Petitioner pursuant to the said Show-Cause Notice. C.P No.D-1687 of 2020 was disposed of by order dated 20.10.2020 as not pressed, directing the respondent to act in accordance with law and also in line with order dated 06.09.2018 passed in C.P No.D-877 of 2019. Counsel for the plaintiff was unable to show from the record that whether the Show-Cause notice was ever replied by the plaintiff, however alleges that the Plaintiff sent a letter dated 10.06.2020 (page 55) to the Asst.
2. Collector of Customs (Bond) which till date has remained un-answered. It appears that after issuance of Show-Cause notice on 08.10.2019 this suit was preferred on 23.07.2020 disclosing that the parties were earlier engaged through Constitutional petition, however, seeking a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled for re-validation and revival of the earlier granted Warehouse license bearing No. PWL-7/82. This court on the first date of hearing through its order dated 23.07.2020 as mentioned earlier restrained the defendant No.2 from taking any coercive action against the Plaintiff. Counsel for the plaintiff while arguing these applications dilated upon the procedure laid down under the Customs Rules, 2001 for the grant, cancellation, suspension and re-validation of Warehouse licenses embodied through Rules 344 to 346 of the Customs Rules. These Rules are reproduced hereunder:
344. Cancellation of License.----The license may be cancelled by the Collector on conviction of the licensee for any offense under any of the Acts or non-utilization of the license during the last twelve months, or for violation of any of the conditions specified in the license or on the request, in writing, by the licensee.
345. Suspension of License.----(1) Pending consideration whether a license be cancelled under rule 344, the Collector may suspend the license if he is of the opinion that it is expedient to do so and for the reasons to be recorded, in writing, thereof by him.
(2) In a case referred to in sub-rule (1) the reasons to show-cause shall be communicated to the licensee within a week of such suspension.
346. Revalidation or revival of license.----The license shall be issued for a period of three years and the same shall stand revalidated for a further period of three years before every expiry date by the Collector on the request of the licensee provided the Collector is satisfied that no action under the Acts is pending against the licensee, and the' changes, if any, in the documents furnished under rule 94.
3. Frame of the suit and the applications before me are with regards the entitlement of revival of Plaintiff's license under Rule 346. The said Rule states that a licensee has perpetual right of revival/revalidation of its license after every term of three (03) years, however, to make one eligible for such revival/revalidation, an application is to be made before the ensuing expiry date. The words "before every expiry date" were incorporated in these Rules by an amendment brought on 28th June, 2010, hence apply to the present case. Another precondition for revival, of a license is that the Collector has to be satisfied that "no action under the Act is pending against the licensee".
4. Thrust of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff was that (i) the Show-Cause notice issued to the plaintiff does not amount to "an action" under the Act and (ii) the word "satisfied" used in the said Rule is to be construed on "higher perception" meaning thereby mere pendency of a Show-Cause Notice against the Plaintiff was such a minisculous act that it shouldn't become a reason of dissatisfaction of the Collector. Learned counsel read out some judgments related to explanation of the word "satisfaction" however, neither gave copies thereof to the court nor provided a list of the cases, hence I am at loss to consider those. However, with regards interpretation of word "action" weather to include issuance of a Show-Cause Notice or not, no assistance was 'provided nor any case law was cited. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff in these circumstances, requests that the defendants who were continuously interfering with the business of the plaintiff committed contempt of this Court orders hence action to be taken on the alleged contemnors.
5. To start with, one must keep in mind that Customs Rules use the words "revival' and "revalidation" instead of "renewal" of license. Webster's dictionary defines "renew" as to make fresh or strong again. This indicates that something or someone is tired or worn out and needs to be refreshed and strengthened. While "revive is to return to life; to recover life; to live anew and the word "revalidate" defined by the same dictionary means "to make (something) legal or valid again".
6. Hence upon expiry of three years term, a license dies (or become illegal) and is needed to be recovered to life rather than being restored to its original (fresh) condition (if it was to be renewed).
7. Hence the corpse of an expired license has to be brought to life by the mechanism provided by Rule 346, and if one doesn't follow this remedial transportational path, license's dead body cannot be given a new lease of life and any declaration seeking right to bring a dead body to life is impossible to be granted.
8. Having dilated on as to what an expired license be construed as, one has to now cautiously re- examine the procedure given in Rule 346 as this is the only nectar available in the entire scheme of law. The first remedial prescription is that application for revival has to be made before a license expires. It's like giving oxygen to a dying patient.' If one loses life, no matter how much oxygen one could be given, return to life is nearly impossible. This is the case of the Plaintiff. The license as seen from page 53 expired on 31.01.2020 (notwithstanding that it was restored for the interim period by the court order on 01.10.2019), but unless revived or revalidated through the process of Rule 346, a license would fail to remain a valid or legal document. No procedure is given by the 1969 Act nor the Rules 2001 which could permit extension of time for such purposes, however Section 224 of the 1969 Act creates a general possibility of extension of time if one satisfies the Board or the appropriate officer that the delay was beyond the control of the applicant and that by granting such extension, there is a possibility of some loss or hardship to the applicant being mitigated or prevented.
9. Now coming to the learned counsel's contention that issuance of a Show-Cause notice does not amount to an "action" under the Act, to answer this question it would be appropriate to once again refer to Webster dictionary to find meaning of the word "action". While many circumstantial meanings are given to this word by the said dictionary, however, for legal purposes, it is held to mean "the initiating of a proceeding in a court of justice by which one demands or enforces one's right". At this juncture one can also observe that the Show-Cause Notice was issued under Section 12(3) and (4) of the 1969 Act read with Rules 344 and 355 of the Rule 2001, so as long as a decision on the Notice is not given in favour of the Plaintiff, for all legal purposes, issuance of the said Notice would amount to an action pending under the Act. Counsel failed to assist that what else issuance of a Show-Cause Notice be called otherwise. The word action has been used 16 times in the Act and 80 times in the Rules. In fact, Section 217 of the Act grants protection to all II "actions" taken under the Act.
10. Now coming to the test of "satisfaction" under the law. While in a different context, but the Hon'ble Supreme Court through a five member Bench while dilating on the phrases like "reason to believe", "appears to the Court" leading to tentative satisfaction referred to the case reported as 1982 PCr.LJ 778 [SC (AJ&K) titled Munshi Khan v. The State, and considered the observation that the words "has reason to believe" and "appears to the Court" are to be construed to suggest that there must be some tangible evidence, and held that the belief of the Court must not rest on imaginative, speculative, hypothetical or arbitrary grounds". Rule 346 has not left much to the imagination of the Collector. No exercise of administrative decision making, or application of judicial mind is required.
11. All he is required to do is to satisfy himself of the fact that whether or not an action under the Act is pending against the applicant or not. Rule does not pose any challenge to the Collector's judicial wisdom. It is worth pointing out that so far no decision has been made by the Collector against the Plaintiff. In fact, the Petitioner hasn't even applied for revival of its license as per law. The letter dated June L 10, 2020 is for "renewal" of license, of which there are no provisions available in the law and the rules. The letter even if considered to be an application for revival of license is delayed by four months. No application for extension of time is made justifying the delay under Section 241.
12. Nonetheless even to consider this application, the Plaintiff must bring the action instituted by issuance of the Show Cause Notice to an end as required by Rule 346.
13. Now coming to the applications for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 and Section 94 read with section 151. The law relating to injunction has been provided in the Specific Relief Act of which Section 53 provides that "temporary injunction are such as are to continue until a specified time, or until the further order of the court, and they may he granted at any stage of a suit. They may be granted at any period of a suit, and are regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (V of 1908)". Section 94(c) and (e) of the Code of Civil Procedure contain provisions under which a Court may in order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated grant a temporary injunction or make such other interlocutory orders as may appears to the Court to be just and convenient. The procedure for seeking temporary injunction has been provided under Order XXXIX of the Code. It is well settled that for the grant of temporary injunction three factors have to be satisfied which are prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. However, an injunction being discretionary equitable relief cannot be granted when equally efficacious relief is obtainable in any other usual mode or proceeding. Evidently for the fore-mentioned reasons the Plaintiff does not seem to have an arguable case, let alone a prima facie case as it has neither filed for revival or validation of its license in time nor has made any speedy efforts to have the Show- Cause decided as per the learned counsel for the Defendant, hearings are still taking place as aftermath of the said Notice. Alternate and efficacious remedy is available to the plaintiff through departmental hierarchy. Balance of convenience also did not tilt in favour of the Plaintiff as admitted by the learned counsel, business of the Plaintiff has come to a standstill as the Defendants are not permitting it to operate with an expired license. As to irreparable losses, those too (if any) are solely attributable to the acts of the Plaintiff who was neither vigilant in reviving its license nor having the Show-Cause adjudicated in accordance with law. Hence applications at Sr.
14. Nos.1 and 2 devoid of merit are dismissed, resultantly the contempt of court application C.M.A.
15. No.12584 of 2020 (at Sr. No 4) becomes infructuous and dismissed too.