Repeal without saving clause defeated pending Gold Control proceedings as legislative intent excluded the normal saving rule.

Repeal of the Gold (Control) Act without a saving clause was treated as indicating a contrary legislative intention, so Section 6 of the General Clauses Act did not preserve pending show-cause notice proceedings. The Court relied on the statement of objects and reasons, which described the Gold Control regime as unsuccessful and burdensome, and also noted that earlier regulatory changes and the Gold (Control) Ordinance had used express saving clauses for notices. On that basis, the pending notice and proceedings under the repealed regime could not survive, and the connected matters were remitted for further proceedings on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the repeal of the Gold (Control) Act without a saving clause manifested a contrary intention so as to exclude Section 6 of the General Clauses Act and render the pending show-cause notice and proceedings unenforceable.

Analysis: The repeal was examined in the light of the statement of objects and reasons, which described the Gold Control regime as unsuccessful, regressive, and a source of hardship and dissatisfaction. On that basis, the Court held that the legislative intent behind the repeal was not a mere repeal simpliciter attracting the normal saving under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. The Court also noted that earlier regulatory changes in the same field had carried express saving clauses, and that the Gold (Control) Ordinance had itself saved show-cause notices. In that setting, the continuing notice could not survive the repeal.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice and the proceedings founded on the repealed regime did not survive, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief, including setting aside of the impugned High Court judgment and remand of the connected matters for further proceedings on merits.

---