Redemption of confiscated gold remained subject to revision under amended rules; an earlier permit did not bar revisional power.

A right to redeem confiscated gold arose only when the Collector passed the redemption order, and because the amended gold control rules were already in force on that date, the order remained subject to the newly conferred revisional power. The claimant therefore had no vested right immune from revision merely because the redemption fine had been paid. The Gold Control Administrator's prior administrative grant of a permit to possess primary gold did not bar the exercise of separate statutory revisional jurisdiction, since the permit function and revision operated in different fields. The challenge to the revisional notice was rejected, and no legal error was found in the dismissal of the writ petition.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellant acquired a vested right to redeem the seized gold merely on payment of the redemption fine so as to exclude the revisional power introduced by the amended gold control rules; and (ii) whether the Gold Control Administrator, who issued the permit to possess primary gold, was barred from exercising revisional jurisdiction over the Collector's order.

Issue (i): whether the appellant acquired a vested right to redeem the seized gold merely on payment of the redemption fine so as to exclude the revisional power introduced by the amended gold control rules.

Analysis: The right claimed was only the right to redeem the seized gold under the Collector's order, not an absolute right to return of the gold. That right arose only when the Collector passed the confiscation and redemption order on 11 May 1967. On that date the amended rules had already come into force and had conferred revisional power on the Gold Control Administrator. The Collector's order was therefore subject to revision and could not be treated as final in the sense of creating an indefeasible vested right immune from the amended procedure.

Conclusion: The appellant had no vested right excluding revision, and the amended revisional provision applied. The contention was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the Gold Control Administrator, who issued the permit to possess primary gold, was barred from exercising revisional jurisdiction over the Collector's order.

Analysis: The issue of a permit to possess primary gold was an administrative function under the scheme of the rules, whereas revision under the amended rule was a separate quasi-judicial function. The two powers operated in different fields, and the grant of a permit did not disable the Administrator from later exercising statutory revisional jurisdiction over the Collector's order.

Conclusion: The Administrator was not disqualified from exercising revisional power. The contention was rejected.

Final Conclusion: No legal error was shown in the dismissal of the writ petition, and the challenge to the revisional notice failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A right to redeem confiscated gold accrues only on the Collector's redemption order, and if the governing rules have already been amended to confer revisional power, the order remains subject to revision; an administrative permit issued under the rules does not bar the exercise of a separate quasi-judicial revisional power.

---