CT Gen Stat § 4-182 (2020)
2020 Connecticut General Statutes|Title 4 - Management of State Agencies|Chapter 54 - Uniform Administrative Procedure Act|Section 4-182 - Matters involving licenses.

 (a) When the grant, denial or renewal of a license is required to be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing, the provisions of this chapter concerning contested cases apply.(b) When a licensee has made timely and sufficient application for the renewal of a license or a new license with reference to any activity of a continuing nature, the existing license shall not expire until the application has been finally determined by the agency, and, in case the application is denied or the terms of the new license limited, until the last day for seeking review of the agency order or a later date fixed by order of the reviewing court.(c) No revocation, suspension, annulment or withdrawal of any license is lawful unless, prior to the institution of agency proceedings, the agency gave notice by mail to the licensee of facts or conduct which warrant the intended action and the specific provisions of the general statutes or of regulations adopted by the agency that authorize such intended action, and the licensee was given an opportunity to show compliance with all lawful requirements for the retention of the license. If the agency finds that public health, safety or welfare imperatively requires emergency action, and incorporates a finding to that effect in its order, summary suspension of a license may be ordered pending proceedings for revocation or other action. These proceedings shall be promptly instituted and determined.(d) (1) When an agency is authorized under the general statutes to issue a license, but is not specifically authorized to revoke or suspend such license, the agency may: (A) Revoke or suspend such license in accordance with the provisions of subsection (c) of this section; or (B) (i) adopt regulations, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 54, that provide a procedure for the revocation or suspension of such license consistent with the requirements of said subsection (c), and (ii) revoke or suspend such license in accordance with such regulations.(2) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to affect (A) the validity of any regulation adopted in accordance with this chapter and effective on or before October 1, 1999, or (B) any contested case in which a notice under section 4-177 is issued on or before October 1, 1999.(1971, P.A. 854, S. 17; P.A. 99-90, S. 1; P.A. 13-279, S. 3.)History: P.A. 99-90 added Subsec. (d) re agency authorization to revoke or suspend a license; P.A. 13-279 amended Subsec. (c) by adding “and the specific provisions of the general statutes or of regulations adopted by the agency that authorize such intended action”.Cited. 171 C. 691; 172 C. 263; 173 C. 462; 186 C. 153; 191 C. 173; 207 C. 77; Id., 698; 211 C. 508; 213 C. 184; 239 C. 32.Cited. 1 CA 1; 9 CA 622; 27 CA 495; judgment reversed, see 225 C. 499.Cited. 40 CS 226.Subsec. (c):Cited. 207 C. 698; 214 C. 560; 220 C. 86; 223 C. 618; 235 C. 128. Since phrase “institution of agency proceedings” means the institution of a particular action at law or case in litigation and “proceeding” encompasses a broader category of events than that encompassed by a hearing or final decision, Department of Public Utility Control instituted proceedings against plaintiff when it issued the letter to plaintiff informing it of its initiation of the new investigation; grounds for revocation of license must be more than self-evident to the licensee, thus Department of Public Utility Control's letter to licensee which merely advised that department had initiated an investigation into whether it should revoke licensee's certificate of public convenience and necessity, stated certain departmental procedural practices and indicated that licensee was designated as a party to the proceeding without reference to the basis underlying initiation of the proceeding did not satisfy statutory requirements because the letter commenced revocation proceedings and could not have provided licensee with notice and opportunity to show compliance prior to institution of the proceeding; “opportunity to show compliance” provision represents a “second chance” doctrine which allows licensee opportunity to put its house in lawful order before more formal agency proceedings are undertaken; court did not interpret Subsec. as requiring a hearing or opportunity for a hearing prior to revocation of license or as component of the “opportunity to show compliance” provision. 270 C. 778. Issuance of second chance notice under Subsec. is precursor to formal license revocation process governed by Sec. 4-177(b) and does not on its own constitute the institution of agency proceedings; agency proceeding by Insurance Department is not instituted until department commences a contested case proceeding in accordance with regulation implementing Sec. 4-177(b). 315 C. 196.Cited. 14 CA 552; 24 CA 662; judgment reversed, see 223 C. 618; 34 CA 343; 37 CA 777. Where plaintiff had been given ample notice of charges against him and had a sufficient opportunity to be heard, failure of state electrical work examining board to hold a compliance hearing prior to license revocation did not deprive plaintiff of his statutory or constitutional rights. 104 CA 655.