Gold dealer licence eligibility turns on leaving the firm or employment before claiming preferential treatment under the rules.

Rule 2(f) proviso (e) to the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969 applies only to an erstwhile partner who has left a licensed firm and applies within sixty days of leaving, while proviso (f) applies only to a person who has left the employment of a licensed dealer, has the requisite five years' experience, and applies within sixty days of leaving. A person who continues as a partner in a licensed firm does not satisfy the threshold requirement for either proviso. On that basis, the claim to preferential entitlement to a gold dealer's licence was rejected and the application remained refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant, while continuing as a partner in a licensed firm, could claim entitlement to a gold dealer's licence under Rule 2(f) proviso (e) or Rule 2(f) proviso (f) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969.

Analysis: Rule 2(f) proviso (e) applies only to an erstwhile partner who has left the licensed firm and applies within sixty days of leaving, subject to the other prescribed conditions. Rule 2(f) proviso (f) applies only to a person who has already left the employment of a licensed dealer and who can establish the requisite five years' experience, with the application also made within sixty days of leaving employment. On the admitted facts, the appellant was still continuing as a partner in a licensed firm and therefore did not satisfy the threshold requirement for either proviso. The claim for preferential treatment was thus inconsistent with the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The appellant was not covered by Rule 2(f) proviso (e) or Rule 2(f) proviso (f), and the rejection of the application for a gold dealer's licence was upheld.

---