Emergency suspension power for CHA licences cannot be used after delay when misconduct is still unproven.

The CEGAT, Mumbai held that the suspension power under Regulation 21(2) of the CHA Licensing Regulations, 1984 is an extraordinary emergency measure intended for immediate use where negligence or culpability is noticed. Because the suspension was ordered long after the alleged misconduct arose and the allegations were still pending adjudication, the drastic power was unwarranted and reflected lack of application of mind. The suspension order was set aside, while the Commissioner was left free to proceed under Regulation 23 after completion of proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner was justified in suspending the CHA licence under Regulation 21(2) of the CHA Licensing Regulations, 1984, when the alleged misconduct had not yet been established in adjudication and the power was exercised after a considerable delay.

Analysis: The suspension power under Regulation 21(2) is an extraordinary measure meant for immediate use where urgent action is required on noticing negligence or culpability of a CHA. On the facts, the impugned order was passed long after the alleged cause of action had arisen, and the allegations against the CHA were still pending adjudication. Such a situation did not call for invocation of the emergency suspension power; instead, action after completion of proceedings could be taken under Regulation 23. The Tribunal also noted that where the alleged offence is not yet established, exercise of the drastic suspension power indicates lack of application of mind.

Conclusion: The suspension order was unsustainable and the appeal succeeded. The suspension of the CHA licence was set aside, while the Commissioner was left free to proceed under Regulation 23 of the CHA Licensing Regulations, 1984.

---