M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, a public limited company, is a licensed importer. The licence expired on 3 2-1981. On 24-3-1981, that is, nearly two months after the expiry of the licence, it applied for renewal of the licence in accordance with trie Customs house Agents Licensing Regulations of 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations') to the 1st respondent Collector of Central Excise and Customs, in Karnataka, Bangalore. That application for renewal came to be rejected by an order made on 3-3-1982 but issued on 15-3-1982. After setting out in detail the facts of the case, the 1st respondent-Collector took the view that on the date of the application there was no valid licence which could be renewed by him and therefore, rejected the application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner Company preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent Central Board of excise and Customs, Government of India, new Delhi. The 2nd respondent has confirmed the order of the 1st respondent and rejected the appeal. Agrifered by the said two orders true copies of which are at annexnre Could to the petition, the petitioner has approached this Court under arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india for an order quashing the said two orders as they are illegal, amounting to failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in the respondents and praying for a writ of mandamus directing giant of licence which admittedly expired on 3 2 1981. Customs House Agents Licence is governed by the Regulations framed under the Customs Act (Centra! Act) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). The relevant regulations are framed under the power conferred on the Central Government by s. 146 of the Act. Among other things, the regulations provide for the mode of making applications, its rejection, grant and renewal. Provisions are also made to call upon the applicant to furnish security etc. Under the scheme of the Regulations, on an application in the first instance or at the initial stage, licence is granted for one year only and thereafter before the lapse of that one year, applicant is required to apply for renewal which may be granted for and further period of three years. Thereafter, it has lobe kept renewed if the licensee so wishes. Thereafter, it has lobe kept renewed if the licensee so wishes. Regulation 13 of the Regulations reads as follows :"see 13, Period of validity of licence.- (1) A licence granted under regulation 11 shall be valid for a period of one year. (2) Where a licence has been granted under 'regulation 11, the Collator of customs may, not with standing any thing costained in sub-regelation (6) on an application made to him in this behalf before the expiry of that licence extend the period for a further period not exceeding one year. (3) A licence granted under Regulation 11 may'on an application made in this behal f before the expiry c f the period of one year referred to in sub-regulation (1) or the extended period, if any, under sub-regulation (2), be renewed for a period of 3 years and thereafter every 3 years. (4) The fee for renewal of a licence granted under these Regulations shall be rs. 5 (5) Before a licence is renewed, the collector of Customs shall satisfy himself about the financial solvency of the applicant and shall require the production of an income tax clearance certificate. (6) The Collector of Customs may refuse to renew a licence if on such inquiry as he deems fit he finds that the volume of the business transacted by the applicant as Custom House Agent during the period to which that licence ralates is iess than the minimum prescribed by the asst. Collector of Customs in this behalf". ( 2 ) SRI U. L. Narayana Rao, learned coupsel for the petitioner drew my attention to sub-cl. (3) of Regulation 13 of the reguption which provides for licence granted under S. 11, being renewed in the manner earlier stated and contended that the application need be made before the expiry of the period specified in the initial first year and not in respect of licence which has been subsequently renewed for a period of 3 years, as in the case of the petitioner. It was also his contention that a licence renewed once may be renewed after the expiry of the period specified at the time of the first renewal. In support of this proposition, he relies upon the language employed in sub cl. It was also his contention that a licence renewed once may be renewed after the expiry of the period specified at the time of the first renewal. In support of this proposition, he relies upon the language employed in sub cl. (3) of Regulation 13 of the Regulations where there is failure to state "before expiry of the period" in respect of applications to be renewed after the 3 years period. That, in my opinion, does not clearly lend any support to the contention advanced. The regulation properly understood on its grammatical construction first fixes the period for which licence is valid and thereafter provides for renewel only on an application being made. It is not that every licence is renewed automatically after the first renewal. What that sub-clause provides for is the first and subsequent renewals shall be for a period of 3 years. In other words, it determines the peiiod of validity of the first and subsequent renewals and no more. The view taken by the respondents appears to be correct in as much as the regulations do not provide for the contingency of the application being made beyond the period of the licence which has already been renewed once. That lacuna cannot be cured by construing the provision in sub cl. (3) of Regulation 13 of the Regulations in the manner in which the learned counsel wants to construe the same. That would be re-writing the regulation and also would amount to conferring jurisdiction on the 1st respondent which the regulations have not conferred expressly. In this view of the matter the only alternative left for the petitioner is to seek a fresh licence In accordance with the aforementioned Regulations and therefore this writ Petition is mis conceived and the impugned Orders do not call for interference. ( 3 ) I reject the Writ Petition without rule being issued for the reasons aforementioned. --- *** --- .