https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45259 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. en-us Mon, 26 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Jul 2010 14:57:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45259 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. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 26 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45259