2004 (1) TMI 172

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... holding CHA Licence No. 11/216. The licence was initially suspended by the appellate authority on 19-8-2002. The allegation was that the appellant violated Regulations 14(a), (b), (d) and (i) of CHALR, 1984. After six months of suspension the appellant was given a hearing i.e. on 27th February, 2003 and an order confirming the suspension of the appellants licence was passed on under Regulation 2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... wherein the Courts held that suspension orders which do not indicate the urgency in taking such decisions are result of non-application of mind. The appellant also says that investigation into the main offence is completed and a show cause notice is also issued. The authority below did not give any notice under Regulation 24 of CHALR for revoking the licence or otherwise. For more than a year the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... wn enough urgency in taking action against the CHA. The appellant's plea that no urgency was shown while taking action is therefore not correct. Secondly the regular proceedings under Regulation 21(2) were also taken with due sense of urgency. The charge of non-application of mind while passing the impugned order also is not sustainable as we could see that the Commissioner has passed a detailed a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X