CHA licence revocation stayed as premature while related seizure proceedings remained unresolved

Revocation of a CHA licence was treated as premature where the alleged licensing violation arose from the same transaction as pending seizure proceedings. The propriety of enforcing the revocation depended on the final outcome of the seizure matter, so immediate implementation was not considered appropriate. The revocation order was therefore stayed pending disposal of the appeal, preserving the appellant's position until the related proceedings were concluded.

---

---

Issues: Whether revocation of the CHA licence was premature when the outcome of the seizure proceedings was still pending.

Analysis: The licence revocation was based on alleged violation of the CHA licensing regulations arising out of the same transaction that led to seizure of the goods. Since the seizure matter had not reached its final outcome, the propriety of revocation depended on the result of that proceeding. In these circumstances, immediate enforcement of the revocation order was considered premature.

Conclusion: The operation of the revocation order was stayed pending disposal of the appeal, in favour of the appellant.

---