Revisional show cause notices under the Gold (Control) Act need not be quashed absent jurisdictional defect or limitation bar.

A suo motu revisional show cause notice under the Gold (Control) Act is ordinarily not interfered with under Article 226 unless it is shown to be without jurisdiction or time-barred, and the fact that the Collector communicated with the Government did not by itself invalidate the initiation. The explanation to the second proviso to Section 79 applies only where remand or fresh adjudication is ordered, so it does not create an unconditional right to return of seized gold during every revisional process. Where the Government has stayed the administrator's order, the original proceedings remain suspended and return of the gold is not justified at that stage.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suo motu revisional show cause notice issued under the Gold (Control) Act was liable to be interfered with on the ground of legal mala fides or lack of jurisdiction. (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to return of the seized gold pending completion of the revisional proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the suo motu revisional show cause notice issued under the Gold (Control) Act was liable to be interfered with on the ground of legal mala fides or lack of jurisdiction.

Analysis: The revisional power under Section 82(2) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 could be exercised on information received from the subordinate authority or otherwise, and the mere fact that the Collector wrote to the Government did not invalidate the initiation. A show cause notice is ordinarily not interfered with under Article 226 unless there is absence of jurisdiction or it is barred by limitation. The petitioners were given notice and opportunity to raise all objections before the revisional authority, and the notice did not disclose any illegality warranting premature interference.

Conclusion: The challenge to the show cause notice failed and was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to return of the seized gold pending completion of the revisional proceedings.

Analysis: The order of the Administrator was held not to be a remand order but only an order setting aside the original adjudication while reserving liberty for fresh proceedings. On that footing, the explanation to the second proviso to Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 applied only where fresh adjudication was ordered and did not create an unconditional right to return of the gold in every appellate or revisional situation. Since the Government had stayed the operation of the Administrator's order under Section 83(3), the original proceedings remained in suspension and return of the gold at that stage was not justified.

Conclusion: The claim for return of the gold pending revision was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on the merits urged, and the petitioners were left to pursue their objections before the revisional authority before any further challenge, if necessary, after the Government's decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The explanation to the second proviso to Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 applies only to cases of remand or fresh adjudication, and a revisional show cause notice is not to be interdicted under Article 226 unless it is shown to be without jurisdiction or time-barred.

---