Interim stay on gold dealers licence renewal refusal granted on prima facie case, livelihood loss, and balance of convenience

Interim stay of a rejected gold dealers licence renewal was granted because the majority found a strong prima facie case, noting prior renewal after earlier adjudication, no fresh contravention, and the risk of irreparable loss of livelihood if renewal were refused pending appeal. The majority treated the request as a limited interlocutory relief and held that the balance of convenience favoured protecting the applicant until the appeal was decided. A dissenting member considered that stay would effectively determine the appeal on merits and that interim relief was not justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the operation of the order rejecting renewal of the gold dealers licence should be stayed pending disposal of the appeal.

Analysis: The majority treated the stay request as a limited interlocutory prayer and not a final determination of the merits of the renewal dispute. It held that the applicant had shown a strong prima facie case because the licence had been renewed previously even after the earlier adjudication, no fresh contravention had been alleged, and the refusal to renew would deprive the applicant of his means of livelihood. The majority also found that the balance of convenience favoured protection of the applicant from irreparable injury pending appeal. The contrary view that granting stay would virtually dispose of the appeal was rejected.

Conclusion: The stay application was allowed and the operation of the impugned order was stayed pending disposal of the appeal.

Dissenting Opinion: One Member held that the stay request should be rejected because granting it would effectively decide the appeal on merits and the applicant had not made out a case for interim relief.

---