2016 (9) TMI 123

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ocate for the appellant made submissions on the merits of case to plead that offence of the appellant was not so grave as to warrant revocation of CHA license. However, we do not find it necessary to reproduce submissions on merit for reasons which will become evident in the following paragraphs. Ld. Advocate also pleaded that the offence report in this case was received in May 2011 but the SCN was issued on 20.03.2012 which was a clear violation of the timeline of 90 days prescribed in Regulation 22(1) of CHALR. The inquiry report was submitted by the IO on 7.1.2015 almost 2 years 9 months after the issuance of SCN which was in gross violation of time-line of 90 days prescribed in Regulation 22(5) ibid. He cited Madras High Court judgment ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is clearly established.  Madras High Court in the case of A M Ahmad (supra) in effect has clearly held that breach of the time limit prescribed in Regulation 22 is fatal to the order and set aside the order on that ground. As regards the judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Burliegh International (supra) cited by Ld. DR, we have perused the same and find that in that judgment the issue was whether the order issued by Commissioner more than 15 days after the date of hearing under Regulation 19(2) of the CBLR would be sustainable. The Delhi High Court held that such order would be sustainable. However, we find that there is a qualitative difference between the timeline prescribed in Regulation 19(2) of CBLR vis a vis time....