JUDGMENT : JAYANT PATEL, J. 1. Rule. Ms. Maithili Mehta waives notice of Rule for respondent no.1 and Mr. Rashesh Oza waives notice of Rule for respondents no.2 and 3. 2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for both the sides, the petition is considered on the point of observance of principles of natural justice. 3. As this Court is to consider the question of applicability of principles of natural justice while exercising the power under Regulation 23 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations”), Mr. Pahwa, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the challenge to the validity of Regulation 23 on the other ground for constitutional validity of the said Regulations. 4. In view of the aforesaid declaration, we find that the prayer for challenging the constitutional validity of Regulation 23 of the Regulations would not be required to be examined. 5. The short facts of the case are that as per the respondents, irregularities were found in the functioning of the petitioner as licensee agent for clearance of customs cargo at Kandla. The actions were taken for imposition of the penalty, etc. As we are not required to examine the said aspects, we need not refer to the same but suffice it to observe that the proceedings for imposition of penalty were initiated under section 125 read with section 114 of the Customs Act. Ultimately, vide order dated 10.06.2015, there was order for confiscation. However, so far as the petitioner is concerned, the penalty was imposed of Rs. 2,00,000/under section 114(1) of the Customs Act. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order, preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and the said appeal is pending. In the meantime, without issuance of any prior notice whatsoever, order dated 10.08.2015 and 01.09.2015 have been passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs at Kandla, whereby in exercise of the powers under Regulation 23 of the Regulations, the activities of the petitioner are prohibited as Customs Broker at Kandla Port and Mundra Port. The copies of the said orders are produced at Annexure-A and Annexure-B. Under the circumstances, the petitioner has approached to this Court by the present petition. 6. Heard Mr. Pahwa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Maithili Mehta for the Union of India and Mr. Rashesh Oza for the customs authorities, respondents no.2 and 3. 7. The copies of the said orders are produced at Annexure-A and Annexure-B. Under the circumstances, the petitioner has approached to this Court by the present petition. 6. Heard Mr. Pahwa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Maithili Mehta for the Union of India and Mr. Rashesh Oza for the customs authorities, respondents no.2 and 3. 7. Regulation 23 of the Regulations reads as under: “Prohibition: Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations, the Commissioner of Customs may prohibit any Customs Broker from working in one or more sections of the Custom Station, if he is satisfied that such Customs Broker has not fulfilled his obligations as laid down under regulation 11 in relation to work in that section or sections.“ 8. The aforesaid Regulation does enable the Commissioner of Customs to pass prohibitory order. Further, as per Regulation 18 there are powers for revocation of the licence issued to broker. Regulation 19 provides for suspension of licence. Regulation 20 provides for the procedure for revoking of licence or imposition of penalty. Regulation 21 provides for appeal against the decision of the Commissioner of Customs. However, Regulation 23 appears to be in addition to the power for revocation of the licence and for suspension of the licence and for imposition of penalty. 9. The only question to be considered by this Court at this stage is as to whether, before the exercise of the power under Regulation 23 of the Regulations, hearing is required to be given by the Commissioner of Customs or not. If the language incorporated under Regulation 23 of the Regulations, considered with Regulations 18, 19 and 20 of the Regulations, it does show that Regulation 23 of the Regulations are additional powers for prohibiting the broker from his activity in a particular section. So far as revocation of the licence is concerned or for imposition of penalty is concerned by Regulation 20 of the Regulations, express provision is made for issuance of notice and consideration of the matter thereafter. However, so far as Regulation 23 of the Regulations is concerned, there is no express provision made for giving any opportunity of hearing. It is by now well settled that whenever any power is to be exercised, which has adverse effect on the rights of the party, such power is to be read with the principles of natural justice. However, so far as Regulation 23 of the Regulations is concerned, there is no express provision made for giving any opportunity of hearing. It is by now well settled that whenever any power is to be exercised, which has adverse effect on the rights of the party, such power is to be read with the principles of natural justice. It is an admitted position that in the present case, no action is taken for revocation or suspension of licence of the petitioner. But Regulation 23 is invoked for prohibiting the petitioner for operation in Kandla and Mundra Port. As such, so long as the licence is in operation and not revoked or not suspended, the broker will have the right to operate in a particular port. If such is to be curtailed by invoking the powers under Regulation 23, the same will have adverse effect on the rights of the broker to function as per the terms and conditions of the licence. Therefore, the exercise of the power under Regulation 23 of the Regulations will have adverse effect on the rights of the licensed broker. Once it is found that the exercise of the power under Regulation 23 will have adverse effect on the rights of the licensed broker, the power cannot be exercised without giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned licensee or licensed broker. 10. Further, if the language of Regulation no.23 is considered, it uses the word “may prohibit”. Meaning thereby, the discretion is to be exercised by the Commissioner of Customs objectively after considering the necessary material. Before such opinion is recorded of exercise of power to prohibit, opportunity should be read to the effected person, viz., the licensed broker. 11. It is an admitted position that no opportunity whatsoever has been given prior to passing of the impugned order. In view of the above, the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs at Annexure-A And Annexure-B cannot be sustained in the eye of law since the same are in breach of the principles of natural justice. However, at the same time, even if the orders are quashed, the opportunity should be made available to the Commissioner of Customs to exercise the powers under Regulation 23 after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also in accordance with law, if such a case is made out. 12. However, at the same time, even if the orders are quashed, the opportunity should be made available to the Commissioner of Customs to exercise the powers under Regulation 23 after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also in accordance with law, if such a case is made out. 12. In view of the above, the impugned orders at Annexure-A and Annexure-B are quashed and set aside. However, it is observed that the present order shall not operate as a bar to the Commissioner of Customs to invoke the power under Regulation 23 of the Regulations after issuance of prior show cause notice. In the event such powers are invoked, the rights and contentions of both the sides in accordance with law shall remain open. 13. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.