Prescribed licence-revocation procedure cannot be expanded by adding a commissioner's disagreement power; ultra vires action was invalid.

Under Regulation 23 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, the Commissioner was required to follow the prescribed sequence: notice of grounds, inquiry, supply of the inquiry report, invitation of representation, and then a final order. The regulation did not confer any additional power to disagree with the enquiry officer's findings before acting. Action taken beyond the procedure authorized by the regulation was ultra vires. On that construction, the Commissioner's disagreement notice and consequential cancellation of the CHA licence and forfeiture of the security deposit were invalid, and the Tribunal's setting aside of that action was upheld without remand.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under Regulation 23 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, the Commissioner had authority to disagree with the enquiry officer's report and, on that basis, cancel the CHA licence and forfeit the security deposit.

Analysis: Regulation 23 prescribes a complete procedure: notice of grounds, inquiry by the nominated officer, report with findings, supply of the report to the CHA, invitation of representation against the findings, and only thereafter an order by the Commissioner. The regulation does not contain any power enabling the Commissioner to record disagreement with the enquiry officer's report. Where a statutory authority is required to act in a particular manner, it must act only in that manner. Any action taken in excess of the power conferred by the regulation is ultra vires. On that construction, the Commissioner's disagreement notice and the consequential order were unsustainable. The Tribunal's interference was therefore justified, and the defect was not one that required remand.

Conclusion: The Commissioner had no authority under Regulation 23 to disagree with the enquiry officer's report; the cancellation of the CHA licence and forfeiture of security deposit were invalid.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue appeal failed and the Tribunal's order setting aside the Commissioner's action was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a delegated statutory procedure for revocation or suspension of a licence prescribes the steps to be followed, the authority cannot add a further power of disagreement not found in the regulation, and action taken contrary to that prescribed procedure is ultra vires.

---