No referable question of law where detention was treated as a factual finding under Gold Control rules

No referable question of law arose under Section 82B of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 because the only surviving controversy was factual: whether detention had been validly established and whether it was effective. The challenge to the vires and reasonableness of Rule 2(ee) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969 was not pressed as a matter for reference. The Tribunal treated its earlier observation as a finding of fact on detention and held that the issue did not raise a legal question fit for reference to the High Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether any question of law arose for reference to the High Court under Section 82B of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 in relation to the applicability of Rule 2(ee) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969.

Analysis: The application sought reference of two questions. The second question challenging the vires and reasonableness of Rule 2(ee) was not pressed as a matter for reference before the Tribunal. On the first question, the controversy was confined to whether the fact of detention was validly established. The Tribunal treated the observation in its earlier order as a finding of fact that detention existed and noted that the issue whether detention was effective was factual in nature, not a legal question arising for reference.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose, and the reference application failed.

---