Licensing authority cannot impose operational restrictions beyond the regulations; an unsupported one-signatory condition was invalid.

The governing Customs House Agent Regulations did not authorise the Collector of Customs to confine a partnership firm holding a valid licence to only one qualified person for signing and transacting business. Administrative practice, even if directed at preventing fraud or monopoly, could not add a restriction not found in the Regulations. If such a control was required, it had to be introduced by amending the Regulations, not by unilateral action of the Collector. The restriction was therefore without authority of law and invalid, and the impugned order was quashed in favour of the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Collector of Customs could impose a restriction that only one qualified person could sign and transact business for one Customs House Agent licence held by a partnership firm.

Analysis: The Regulations governing Customs House Agents provided for temporary and regular licences, qualification through the prescribed examination, and conditions for operation under Regulation 10, but contained no provision authorising the Collector to limit a valid licence-holder to a single signing person for each business unit. An administrative practice, even if intended to prevent fraud or monopoly, could not create a restriction unsupported by the Regulations. If any such restriction was considered necessary, the proper course was amendment of the Regulations, not unilateral imposition by the Collector.

Conclusion: The restriction was authority of law and invalid; the impugned order was liable to be quashed, in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: A licensing authority cannot impose operational restrictions on a valid licence-holder unless the governing regulations expressly or impliedly confer such power; administrative practice cannot override the regulations.

---