Licensing suspension needs recorded reasons and prompt proceedings; indefinite suspension without action will not stand

Writ jurisdiction was not excluded merely because an appellate remedy existed under the Regulations, where the petition raised excess of jurisdiction and had already been heard on merits. Suspension under Regulation 21(2) was upheld because the order recorded specific allegations, relied on investigations and statements, and showed prima facie material and application of mind. At the same time, a licensing suspension cannot continue indefinitely: the authority must initiate proceedings within a reasonable time after suspension, and if it fails to do so, the suspension will lapse. The appellate court therefore modified the writ court's directions and required initiation of proceedings within one month.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy under the Regulations; (ii) whether the suspension order under Regulation 21(2) required recorded reasons showing immediate necessity and sufficient material; (iii) whether the suspension could be allowed to continue indefinitely without initiation of proceedings under Regulation 23.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy under the Regulations.

Analysis: The Regulations provided an appeal against an order of suspension or revocation. The general rule is that writ jurisdiction is not normally exercised where an effective alternative remedy exists, though exceptions arise where jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice, or other exceptional grounds are shown. Since the matter had already been heard on merits and a question of excess of jurisdiction was raised, the Court declined to non-suit the writ petitioner merely on the ground of alternative remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not rejected on the ground of alternative remedy.

Issue (ii): whether the suspension order under Regulation 21(2) required recorded reasons showing immediate necessity and sufficient material.

Analysis: Suspension under Regulation 21(2) is an interim power exercisable when an enquiry is pending or contemplated, but the order must disclose why immediate action is necessary and must reflect application of mind. The impugned order referred to several specific instances of alleged misconduct, investigations, statements recorded under section 108, and prima facie involvement in duty evasion and forged documents. The materials were held sufficient to show that the authority had not acted without reasons or without application of mind.

Conclusion: The suspension order was not invalid for want of reasons or absence of material.

Issue (iii): whether the suspension could be allowed to continue indefinitely without initiation of proceedings under Regulation 23.

Analysis: A discretionary statutory power must be exercised reasonably and cannot be used to keep a licence under suspension for an open-ended period. The livelihood of the licence-holder was affected, and initiation of proceedings after suspension had to be taken within a reasonable time. Since a substantial period had elapsed without commencement of proceedings, the relief granted by the trial court was modified to require prompt initiation of proceedings, failing which the suspension would stand revoked.

Conclusion: The suspension was allowed to continue only conditionally, and proceedings were directed to be initiated within one month, failing which the suspension would lapse.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of modification of the writ court's directions, while the suspension order itself was not set aside outright and was left operative subject to timely initiation of proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: An interim suspension under a licensing regulation may be sustained if supported by recorded reasons and prima facie material, but such a suspension cannot be continued indefinitely and must be followed by initiation of proceedings within a reasonable time.

---