Excessive delegation challenge fails where the statute's object, policy and scheme sufficiently guide administrative discretion.

Section 28 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 was upheld against a challenge of excessive delegation because the Act's object, policy and overall scheme supplied sufficient guidance for the Administrator's discretion to grant or refuse permission for money-lending or allied business in licensed premises. The restriction was treated as limited and aimed at preventing circumvention of the Act, while Section 5(1) required the Administrator to act consistently with the Act's policy and purposes. The availability of revision to the Central Government further indicated that the power was not arbitrary or unfettered, and the earlier invalidation of Section 27(6) was distinguished because its vague language was absent here.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 28 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 was invalid for excessive delegation of legislative power because it did not expressly prescribe criteria or guidelines for the Administrator's discretion to grant or refuse permission for money-lending or allied business in licensed premises.

Analysis: Section 28 was read as part of the overall scheme of gold control under the Act. The object of the enactment, its policy, and its scheme were treated as supplying sufficient guidance for the exercise of discretion. The restriction was also viewed as limited in nature and directed against circumvention of the Act. Further, Section 5(1) required the Administrator to act in accordance with the policy and purposes of the Act, and the availability of revision to the Central Government reinforced the conclusion that the power was neither arbitrary nor unfettered. The earlier invalidation of Section 27(6) was held inapplicable because that provision contained vague and uncertain expressions that were absent from Section 28.

Conclusion: Section 28 was held valid and not unconstitutional on the ground of excessive delegation.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was set aside and the challenge to Section 28 failed, leaving the statutory restriction operative.

Ratio Decidendi: A delegation is not excessive where the statute, read as a whole, provides sufficient guidance through its object, policy, and scheme, especially when the power conferred is limited and designed to prevent circumvention of the Act.

---