Custom house agent licence revocation needs clear proof of misuse; forfeiture of the security deposit was upheld.

Revocation of a custom house agent licence, which affects livelihood, requires clear proof of misconduct and breach of licensing obligations. The alleged misuse by unauthorised persons was not conclusively established, because the record did not show that they were strangers operating the licence on their own account and the obtaining of identity cards for them pointed to involvement at the CHA's instance. The allegation of use of blank signed documents was also unsupported. The licence revocation was therefore set aside, but forfeiture of the security deposit was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revocation of the custom house agent licence was sustainable on the allegation that the licence had been used by unauthorised persons in breach of the licensing regulations.

Analysis: Revocation of a custom house agent licence, which directly affects livelihood, must rest on clear proof of misconduct and non-compliance with the regulatory obligations. The material on record did not conclusively establish that the four persons said to be involved were strangers operating the licence on their own account, because the Commissioner's own finding showed that identity cards had been obtained for them at the instance of the CHA. The allegation that blank signed documents had been used was also unsupported by the record. In the circumstances, the finding that the licence had been misused by unauthorised persons was not proved beyond doubt. At the same time, the appellant had already suffered a substantial period without business, but the forfeiture of security deposit remained justified.

Conclusion: The revocation of the CHA licence was set aside, but the forfeiture of the security deposit was upheld.

---