Immediate suspension of CHA licence requires recorded urgency; stale material cannot justify exceptional action without fresh reasons.

Regulation 21(2) of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 is an exceptional immediate-action power, so prior notice and pre-decisional hearing are not mandatory where prompt action is required. However, the suspension order must itself disclose recorded reasons showing an appropriate case for urgent action. Where the material is stale and the order does not state any fresh circumstance justifying immediate suspension, later explanations cannot cure the defect. On that basis, the text states that delayed invocation of the power amounted to an unreasonable and colourable exercise of authority, and the licence suspension was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether prior notice and hearing were required before suspending a CHA licence under Regulation 21(2) of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984; (ii) whether the suspension order was sustainable when the material relied upon was stale and the order did not disclose a sufficient basis showing that immediate action was necessary.

Issue (i): Whether prior notice and hearing were required before suspending a CHA licence under Regulation 21(2) of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984.

Analysis: Regulation 21(2) operates as an exceptional power to meet cases needing prompt action, while the ordinary procedure under Regulation 21(1) and Regulation 23 contemplates notice and inquiry. The rule of audi alteram partem is flexible and may be excluded by the scheme and object of the statutory provision where promptitude is essential. In that setting, the absence of a prior hearing does not by itself invalidate action under Regulation 21(2).

Conclusion: Prior notice and pre-decisional hearing were not mandatory before passing an order under Regulation 21(2).

Issue (ii): Whether the suspension order was sustainable when the material relied upon was stale and the order did not disclose a sufficient basis showing that immediate action was necessary.

Analysis: The power under Regulation 21(2) can be exercised only in an appropriate case where immediate action is necessary, and the order must stand on the reasons recorded in it. The order relied only on grave allegations and contemplated inquiry, but the underlying material had been available for months earlier and no fresh circumstance justifying immediate suspension was disclosed in the order itself. A later explanation could not supplement the recorded reasons. The delayed invocation of the power therefore amounted to an unreasonable and colourable exercise of authority.

Conclusion: The suspension order was unsustainable and was quashed.

Final Conclusion: The licence suspension could not be upheld because the exceptional power was invoked on stale material without a properly recorded basis showing immediate necessity.

Ratio Decidendi: An order suspending a CHA licence under an exceptional immediate-action provision is valid only if the recorded reasons themselves disclose an appropriate case requiring prompt action; stale material and post hoc explanations cannot cure the absence of such justification, and prior hearing may be excluded only within that limited scheme.

---