CHA security forfeiture cannot stand without notice or independent reasons after revocation proposal is dropped

A forfeiture of part of a CHA security deposit could not be sustained where the show cause notice only proposed suspension or revocation of the CHA licence and contained no proposal for forfeiture. After the Commissioner dropped the revocation proposal on accepting the CHA's defence, a separate forfeiture order was still made without independent notice or reasons. As the main charge was not upheld and the forfeiture lacked procedural support, the order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether forfeiture of a portion of the CHA security could be ordered when the proposal to revoke the CHA licence had been dropped and no notice for forfeiture had been issued.

Analysis: The show cause notice proposed suspension or revocation of the CHA licence under the licensing regulations. The Commissioner, after accepting the CHA's defence and dropping the proposal to revoke the licence, nevertheless ordered forfeiture of Rs. 10,000 from the security deposit. No proposal for forfeiture formed part of the show cause notice. Once the main charge leading to proposed revocation was not sustained, the separate forfeiture order, unsupported by notice or independent reasons, could not stand.

Conclusion: The forfeiture order was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

---