Licence refusal under gold control rules must show due consideration of all prescribed criteria, not only prior penalisation.

A dealer's licence under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 could be granted only if the Administrator, after enquiry, was satisfied having regard to the prescribed matters in Rule 2 of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969. Previous penalisation under Rule 2(e) could be a relevant factor, but it did not by itself justify refusal or show that other Rule 2 criteria were ignored. A refusal order had to disclose on its face that the relevant licensing factors were considered and weighed. The refusal was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration because the order did not show due consideration of the statutory criteria.

---

---

Issues: Whether refusal of a dealer's licence was sustainable when the order did not show on its face that the relevant criteria under the licensing rule had been duly considered, and whether previous penalisation by itself could justify rejection of the application.

Analysis: Grant of a licence under Section 27(6) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 depended on the Administrator being satisfied, having regard to the matters prescribed in Rule 2 of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969, after such enquiry as he thought fit. The mere fact that the enquiry centred on the applicant's previous penalisation under Rule 2(e) did not mean that the other relevant matters in Rule 2 were ignored. At the same time, an order refusing licence had to disclose ex facie that the relevant matters had been duly considered and weighed. The appellate order was not independently defective merely because it was brief, since it affirmed the speaking order below and no new ground had been urged.

Conclusion: The refusal order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration because the order did not disclose that the relevant licensing criteria had been duly taken into account.

---