Statutory delegation and partnership licence change: authorised orders were appealable, but outsider induction needed fresh licensing.

An order passed by a Collector acting under authority delegated by the Administrator under the Gold (Control) Act was treated as an exercise of statutory power, so the appellate tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Refusal to induct a new person as partner in an existing licensed firm was upheld because bringing in an outsider would change the constitution of the partnership and could not be treated as a mere administrative alteration under the existing licence. The proposed partner acquired no automatic right to induction, and a fresh licence application was required for such a change.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the order passed by the Collector acting under authorisation of the Administrator under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968; and (ii) whether the refusal to induct a new person as partner in the existing licensed firm was erroneous.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the order passed by the Collector acting under authorisation of the Administrator under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.

Analysis: The powers of the Administrator could be exercised by an authorised person under Section 4(4) and, by virtue of Section 4(5), such authorised exercise operates in the same manner and with the same effect as if the powers had been conferred directly by the Act. The order made by the Collector under such authorisation was therefore treated as an order passed in the exercise of statutory powers attracting the appellate provision.

Conclusion: The appeal was maintainable and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear it.

Issue (ii): Whether the refusal to induct a new person as partner in the existing licensed firm was erroneous.

Analysis: Induction of a stranger into the firm would alter the constitution of the partnership and could not be treated as a mere administrative change under the existing licence. A person who was not already a partner did not acquire any automatic right to be inducted merely because her husband had earlier been a partner. Such a change would require a fresh application for licence.

Conclusion: The refusal to induct the proposed partner was and no interference was called for.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned order failed on merits, though the Tribunal affirmed its own jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory authority is empowered to act through an authorised officer, the officer's exercise of that power is treated as an exercise under the Act itself, and a proposed induction of an outsider into a licensed partnership that changes the firm's constitution requires fresh licensing rather than continuation of the existing licence.

---